1984-02-14

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap) moved:: That this House condemns the government for:
1.	employing corporate tax handouts to produce business profits without any guarantees that such tax benefits would result in new investment or job creation;
2.	increasing the tax burden on Canadians at the very time when more stimulus is needed in the economy; and
3.	allocating job-creation funds in a partisan fashion not based upon local employment levels.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think last Friday we witnessed in this House perhaps the most arrogant kind of gesture that we have seen in many, many years. First, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) rose in his place and pointed out what is happening in Canada. We have people lining up at food banks because their funds at the end of the month have simply been exhausted. There are thousands and thousands of students unable to obtain access to the courses and classes they need. There are single mothers who are unable to afford to take their children to dentists. War vets are calling Members of Parliament, people who fought in battles such as Dieppe, who at the end of the month have to go to the Legions and beg to open up the poppy funds in order to put food on their tables.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway told us that these things are happening while at the same time in a suburb of Quebec City the Liberal Government had just allocated the sum of $300,000 to a judo club. If this is not indicative of a Government that has virtually gone mad, a Government of snakes and a Government that has become so arrogant, so uncaring and so lacking compassion for Canadians, then I do not know what is.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on many occasions has stood in his place and has said that the Canadian economy is performing relatively well. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) stands up almost daily and suggests yes, there are signs all over the country that the recovery is strong. There are people like Michael Walker, that infamous economist working for the Conservative think-tank in Vancouver, the Fraser
Institute, who said the other day that, despite an unemployment rate of about 11 per cent, the Canadian economy is going full tilt. Full tilt in what direction, or who is going full tilt? Perhaps he is going full tilt.
[DOT] (mo)
Are single parents raising children going full tilt ahead these days? Are the hundreds of thousands of pensioners still living below the poverty level progressing full tilt with this recovery? Are the 1.5 million jobless Canadians progressing full tilt? Are the one million people who are participating in part-time jobs in an effort to put food on the table for their families participating in this recovery? Are the hundreds of thousands of small-businessmen who are struggling through mounds of red tape to survive these days part of the recovery? What about the fishermen who were here last week from the West Coast and are literally struggling to survive in that particular industry? What about the one out of every five young people in the country who find themselves jobless today and about to be entering into a period of competition with hundreds of thousands of other young people leaving high schools, colleges, technical schools, vocational schools and universities, about to be entering the job market for the first time in full-time and part-time work?
Some people talk about a recovery. Some people talk about the economy moving ahead full tilt. But let us face it, when they use these terms they are talking about a recovery in corporate profits only. In 1983 after-tax profits for corporations in Canada were up 69.4 per cent. That is the recovery about which they are talking; let there be no mistake about it.
In the last Budget the Government said that the answer to our economic problems was to give grants and tax concessions to corporations so that they could take that money and reinvest it in the Canadian economy, that economic development would begin to occur and jobs would be developed in those corporate structures. That was the theory, that was the myth. That was the explanation the Government gave the people of Canada for the massive hand-outs to corporations in the last federal Budget. It is simply a continuation of a policy we have seen for many years. What I have heard from Progressive Conservatives in terms of their answer to stimulating the economy is that additional tax concessions should be provided to the corporate sector. If that is not the case, I hope those Hon. Members will rise in their seats later and clarify that particular point. That is what I understood the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) to be saying.
What we anticipated was about to happen did not happen. Indeed the corporations took the corporate hand-outs or accepted tax concessions, and we cannot blame them for that.

February 14, 1984
Supply
However, did they invest in new plant and equipment? No, they did not. As a matter of fact, when we look at investments in the country, in 1982 they were down 12 per cent from 1981. In 1983 they were off another few percentage points, and all the projections I have seen indicate that investment in Canada will be down in 1984 and in 1985.
In other words, the investment, and therefore economic expansion and job creation, did not occur, so only half the equation was fulfilled-the tax concessions went out. They went out as part of the Reaganomics application here in Canada, or what is more commonly called the trickle-down theory. That theory is to help those at the top of the pyramid and large corporations, to give tax concessions to the wealthy of Canada, and eventually the benefits will trickle down to the average Canadian citizen. We are seeing absolutely no evidence of that happening in this country.
S)
Corporations love these Government tax concessions and grants. In fact, they demand them. The other day the Canadian Manufacturers' Association called upon the Minister of Finance to add another billion dollars in tax concessions in his upcoming Budget. The last Budget gave $2.7 billion in new corporate tax breaks over the next four years to the corporate sector on top of the $8 billion already given to the major oil companies in PIP grants between the years 1982 and 1986.
In the last year we have seen about $10 billion in corporate tax breaks given to a very select set of corporations. There is the myth that these are available and are used by all corporations. If you look closely at the corporations receiving the tax breaks, you are talking about a very elite section of the corporate community which actually makes use of and obtains these tax breaks, using one or more of the 200 loopholes provided in the tax system.
There is even a great deal to say, particularly from members of the Government, about the corporate tax rate in this country being 50 per cent. That is a laugh. We have seen countless reports and all sorts of evidence indicating that the average corporation paid 23 per cent on their taxes in 1980. When you start looking at what corporations are doing with the tax system, you can list dozens and dozens of corporations in this country that last year made significant profits and paid no income tax to the federal Government, not a single nickel. I will list a handful of them. The Hudson's Bay Company made profits in the millions of dollars, but did not pay a single cent in income tax. Steinberg Incorporated had $34 million in profits and paid not a single penny in income tax. Simpsons-Sears had $27 million in profits and did not pay a single cent in income tax. Total Petroleum, $12 million in profits, not a single cent in income tax. Domtar Incorporated paid not a single cent in income tax.
One could go on and on listing all the major corporations in this country that were very profitable last year, extremely profitable, but did not pay one single red cent in federal income tax as a result of the over 200 loopholes provided by the federal Government for its corporate friends.
The corporate highrollers of them all are the banks. Look at what the banks have been able to do with our Liberal and Conservative Governments over the years. They have fine-tuned that corporate loophole section into a fine art. In 1982 the banks made hundreds of millions of dollars in profits. In some cases their after-tax profits were as high as 130 per cent. What was their average rate which they paid across this sector? The average rate was 8.1 per cent income tax.


Mr. Nickerson:: Too much.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Conservatives yell "too much"; 8.1 per cent is too much for the banks. They perhaps betray their true feelings by some of these side comments. We have an 8.1 per cent average tax rate for the major fives in 1982, a time when the average Canadian with an income of $18,000 was paying in the 20 per cent range, let alone the two major players that did not pay a single penny in income tax.
I offer a challenge to Hon. Members on the Government benches to stand in their places and suggest a single economist who is credible who would suggest that corporate tax concessions is the way to stimulate the economy during these recessionary times. Members of Parliament have had provided to them over the past few weeks countless studies and reports by well-known and reputable economists who suggest that tax concessions to corporations add little if any stimulus to the economy, both long and short-term. In fact, there were four major Canadian studies done in the early 1970s, all of which showed the amount of increased investment generated by incentives was actually less than the amount of money lost in Government revenue. A study done recently at Memorial University found that for every 21 cents of investment generated by tax breaks for manufacturers, the Canadian treasury lost a dollar of revenue. We are losing money, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to ask Government Members opposite what they have done with the tax expenditure account which was introduced in 1979. The tax expenditure account clearly showed the amount of money the corporations and certain Canadians in the upper income brackets received in tax concessions. This was intended to give us some idea of how we measure the benefits to Canadians. The Liberals have abandoned that particular tax expenditure account now. There is no way of accounting for what the corporations are doing. It is time we totally revamp our corporate structure to tie the grants and tax concessions given to corporations to such things as research and development, skill training, purchasing Canadian equipment and services, job creation and the like. Let us expect something from the corporations if we are going to be giving them taxpayers' money.
When we look at what is happening to the average taxpayer in the country as a result of corporate tax concessions, we have almost had it. This year the average Canadian has had his taxes increased significantly. The average Canadian is paying more taxes in 1983-84. In 1984-85 personal income taxes will go up by $1.9 billion. Over the next four years we are
February 14, 1984

expecting the taxes of the average Canadian to increase by nearly $9 billion. That means $9 billion is being taken out of the pockets of average Canadians at a time when disposable incomes for the manufacturing sector have never been more in need. We have manufacturing plants operating at 20 to 30 per cent below capacity. They need Canadians to be purchasing homes, appliances and vehicles.
Disposable income in the country is decreasing, and one of the reasons it is decreasing is that the Government is taking more money out of the hands of average Canadians. Personal income tax is going up. Federal sales tax is going up. We still have that special charge on gasoline that should not be in place today. Over $9 billion will be taken out of the pockets of average working Canadians over the next four years as a result of the Government trying to find ways to grab more money to offset the money being given to the corporate tax sector.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I think the most disgraceful performance we have seen in the Flouse for many months was the recognition that the Government had set out a special initiatives fund, presumably an opportunity for all Members of Parliament to take to the bureaucracy suggestions for job creation in their own constituencies. They were looking for projects that were needed, such as bridges to be built, railroad crossings to be established and community infrastructures to be developed. The Government forgot one important aspect. It told only Liberal Members of Parliament about this particular fund. By the time Parliament even recognized that such a fund was in place, $138 million out of $150 million had already been spent in Liberal constituencies only. The fact that the Province of Quebec has received about 50 per cent of this money, although it only has 30 per cent of the country's unemployed, indicates very clearly the bias in favour of Liberal ridings. Members of Parliament were told last November that there was a fund and that we would be receiving guidelines on how to access this particular money for job creation. It was not until weeks and weeks later that Members of Parliament found out the terms of reference. By that time $138 million out of the $150 million had already been allocated to the Liberal caucus members.
That is the kind of hypocrisy, the arrogant, cynical behaviour, that Canadians have come to accept as the norm for the Liberal Government of Canada. We cannot expect anything more than this sleazy, snake-in-the-grass kind of approach to economic development in this country. The Canadian people do not expect anything more. They know that in their dying days as their nails scrape down the walls of the House of Commons, as they slip out of this place, members of the Government are prepared to do anything.
It is an embarrassment to have a government in place that is prepared to be so uncaring about the recovery program. It knew full well when it introduced its monetary policy of high interest rates and high unemployment what the social cost would be. That was done consciously and it was clearly outlined where it had been applied in other countries. It knew
Supply
the social costs, the human suffering and the pain that Canadians were going to experience. It was prepared to gamble.
What we see is a government that is prepared to salvage its electoral fortunes in the country, through the Special Initiatives Program, on the backs of the unemployed of the country, on the backs of the poor of the country, on the backs of the single parents of the country, on the backs of the war veterans in the country-one could go on and on. It is an uncaring government that is prepared to do anything to regain its electoral successes in selected ridings in the country.
We in the New Democratic Party want to make two points, Mr. Speaker. First, that the recovery program in place today is a recovery program that is unfair, that is biased, that discriminates against Canadians who can least afford it these days.
Second, the last indication we have seen in the House of how concerned the Liberal Government is with a fair recovery program was the Special Initiatives Program designed specifically and only for Liberal members.
Nearly half the people in this country, half the unemployed in this country, half the poor in the country, half of the young people, did not have an opportunity to take advantage of this job-creation initiative. That is an example of a government that has become arrogant in its approach, a government that has become uncaring in its approach. If that is the kind of government we have in place, then I suspect, when we see the Budget in a few hours from now, it will be a Budget, as the Minister of Finance indicated, of the status quo-more of the same. That means more unfairness, more suffering, and in turn that means years and years without prosperity for an increasing number of Canadians. It is a recovery of profits only, not a recovery for people.
We in the New Democratic Party hope and pray that the Minister of Finance will recognize that he has erred in his judgment, that the monetary position that he and the Governor of the Bank of Canada have continued with is not working. With a sense of fairness, fair play and compassion, we hope and pray that the Government of Canada and the Minister of Finance will introduce a Budget that will put people in Canada first as opposed to profits first.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who spoke for the New Democratic Party will recall a nine-month period when there were a lot of commonsense principles in public policy. There was an acknowledgment that poor people were important and that most of the jobs in the country were available in the private sector. In fact, that nine-month period produced a net gain of close to 300,000 jobs in the economy. We have had a four-year period in which we have lost over half a million jobs because of a difference in philosophy.
Does the Hon. Member and his Party believe that it is critically important that employers be left with sufficient money to modernize, to conduct research and development, to develop new products? Are these not the really critical ingredients in preparing jobs for the future, or is the NDP suggesting that the more money that comes into government hands, the better it would do as managers in conducting that research and

February 14, 1984
Supply
producing those products? Is the Hon. Member really arguing that people in the private sector should lose their jobs so more jobs can be created in the public sector? Is that the basic thrust of his argument?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I respond to the question raised by the Hon. Member. Before I respond, however, I would like to remind the Hon. Member that when the Progressive Conservative Party formed the Government for that short period back in 1979, it seems to me that it took all of the job-creation programs across the country and scrapped every single one. In my constituency, I remember, there were very progressive ideas. It was felt we needed certain infrastructure development in our community. The people went to their Member of Parliament, who at that time happened to be of the Conservative Party, saying: "We know the Government has these programs in place; we desperately need some funds". The answer was: "Go home; we have scrapped the development of the safety net". That is the kind of caring, compassion and concern which the Conservatives had when they were in power for that brief time. They simply cut out all of the job-creation programs.
To answer the nonsensical question raised by the Hon. Member, if he had listened to my speech carefully-and even if he did not, I made the point very clearly on a number of occasions-he would know that we do not want these across-the-board, broad-axe concessions to corporations because they have not resulted in the development of new product lines, new plants and investment in new equipment. They have resulted in mergers and takeovers which, in turn, resulted in a net decline of jobs and a net decline in investment in the kind of things he mentioned.
What I suggested, and what we have proposed, is that if we give tax concessions to corporations-and there is a place for it, make no mistake about that-if we are going to give them taxpayers' money as grants, tax concessions, loopholes, or whatever, we should expect something in return, such as investment in new product lines, research and development, new marketing techniques, new production techniques, job creation and job training. They should not get the money unless they do that. That is the expectation we have.
If these companies are going to perform as good corporate citizens and add to the Canadian economy directly or indirectly, tax concessions can make a great deal of sense. But to give away billions and billions of taxpayers' dollars and see in return a skyrocketing increase of mergers in this country's industry, I ask any Hon. Member how this benefits the Canadian economy or Canadians directly or indirectly. It is just taxpayers' dollars being spent on investment in mergers or in overseas investments.


Mr. Evans:: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Hon. Member's speech and I do not feel any of us in this House could disagree with the passion and concern of the Hon. Member for individual Canadians. We have concern for those who are in greatest need in our society and agree that we must
do something about it. Where I disagree violently with the Hon. Member and his Party is in the prescription they have for changes, for rectifying the situation.
The Hon. Member said that corporations were not paying their fair share of taxes. Two weeks ago in this House, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) spoke and I asked him a very straightforward and simple question: Was he aware that over the period of the 1970s, after inflation, in real terms, personal disposable income doubled, wages and salaries doubled?


An Hon. Member:: What about 1980 to 1984?


John Leslie Evans: Corporate profits during that period had gone down by 5 per cent in real terms.


Mr. Broadbent:: Talk about the last four years.


John Leslie Evans: A doubling versus a decline of 5 per cent. That has to say something to the Hon. Member about the incentive to reinvest-which is what he wants-in more research and development, more investment, more job creation. However, if the facts are that over that period of time corporate profits have declined, it says something about the incentive to reinvest. Do you not really think that instead of standing up and railing at corporations, saying they are not doing their share, we should look below the surface and ask what are the fundamental problems? We are not going to get to a solution of those problems by condemnation, by railing in the House of Commons, or by looking at superficialities. We must look at the fundamental problem of why jobs are not being created in the private sector. That is the question. What does it have to do with profitability of business in the private sector and how can we resolve that problem?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, there are many questions raised by the Hon. Member and I will respond to them as best I can. First of all, I want to challenge a point made by the Hon. Member when he raised the question two weeks ago in the House. I distinctly recall him doing so. I asked our parliamentary research department to analyse his statement. I must say it was found to be incorrect. When one looks at corporate profits from 1960 to 1980-


John Leslie Evans: 1970 to 1973. You changed the time period and changed the whole thing.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Using 1982, profits came down, but the Hon. Member is using statistics in a very limited way. In response to the Hon. Member's question as to what can be done, I would like to quote from The Globe and Mail of two weeks ago wherein the chief executive officer of the Bank of Montreal was quoted as saying that the corporate sector in Canada is awash in tax concessions. They cannot deal with them. They do not know what to do with them. The problem in this country, Mr. Speaker, is that this country lacks an industrial strategy. This country has no concept of where it is going in terms of corporate or public growth and development.


Mr. Pepin:: Name one country which has one.
February 14, 1984


Nelson Andrew Riis: The question was asked which country has one.


Jean-Luc Pepin: They are changing all the time.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Japan has a very clear idea of what it is doing with the major sectors of its economy. Canada has not. One of the reasons it has not is that this Government has not taken upon itself to develop industrial sectoral strategies. How can the corporate sector evolve in any realistic way? Does it know where to invest? How does it invest and in what does it invest? In what direction are we going? The result is we have one part of the corporate sector going one way and another going another way. This is because the federal Government has failed to develop the economic leadership it should. It failed to take the responsibility of developing, in co-operation with the provincial governments, the private sector and labour, sectoral strategies for our economy. That is the fundamental reason, Mr. Speaker, why we do not have the appropriate investment in our economic infrastructure, why we do not have the appropriate investment in job creation and why we cannot have the appropriate investment in education and post-secondary training of one kind or another. We do not know where we are going, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, how can we prepare ourselves for that mission?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: This puts an end to the question period. Debate.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member opposite, not surprisingly, began his speech, as he frequently does, with a doom and gloom picture of the Canadian economy today. He offered us a bleak outlook for the economy which, certainly in his view, leaves no hope at all.
That, of course, is at complete variance with the record, the evidence and any statistics which the Hon. Member may want to cite. Every statistic would indicate quite an opposite direction in our economy. In fact, we are experiencing a major recovery of our economy. The stage is now set for growth at a rate which we have not experienced in this country and, indeed, in the industrialized world generally, for some time.
[DOT] (M40)
The Hon. Member opposite cited some graphic examples of hardship. Those are, of course, of concern to us all. But equally, he should recognize that our Gross National Product has increased substantially. Real economic growth was running at a 7 per cent to 8 per cent rate through much of 1983, bringing with it an increase in housing starts, retail sales and industrial production. All those factors improved substantially in the course of the past year.
In addition we have seen a major growth in trade, reaching record levels of exports over imports. Restraint of inflation, one of the key factors to economic recovery, was achieved beyond any forecast of a year or more ago. In May, 1982 inflation was at 11.9 per cent; today it is 4.5 per cent. We have seen interest rates fall substantially, another major factor in setting the stage for our future economic growth and an
Supply
essential element of the economic recovery we experienced during the past 12 to 14 months.
The picture, then, Mr. Speaker, is one of great promise, indeed of great realization. There is a consensus in this House that unemployment is a continuing and deep seated problem for Canada. We have created many more jobs in the economy during the past 12 months than had been foreseen, but equally, large numbers of new workers joined the labour force. The rate of unemployment, while down significantly from 1982 and 1983, is still at levels that none of us welcomes. We want to see a faster rate of decline in the rate of unemployment and I want to touch upon that again as one of the real reasons behind the tax incentive initiatives this Government has undertaken in recent years. The recovery is there, it is happening; it is good news and not the gloomy news that the representative of the New Democratic Party always deals in.
The motion before us, Mr. Speaker, addresses several areas of Government fiscal policy. I want to deal first with the question of tax incentives. The Hon. Member opposite appears to favour the more pejorative words "tax hand-outs" and "tax loopholes", as if there were something wrong or, even on a theological plane, something evil about tax incentives. They are, of course, present in personal income tax, but in the case of corporate taxes they are there for very real purposes and bring very real benefits to the Canadian economy, hence to the Canadian people.
Given the limited time available this morning, I want to touch on three areas: research and development; capital investment; and small business. I take it that the Hon. Member of the NDP is opposed to tax incentives for research and development. I find that a surprising admission on his part when he must recognize that, as never before in our economy, we need the application of high technology and the ability to develop new research and technology which can bring further prosperity.
The reason we put in place tax incentives for research and development in Canada more generous than in most industrialized countries is that we have an economy with a large degree of foreign investment. Typically a foreign-owned multinational corporation centres its research and development at its corporate headquarters or at the point of international excellence in that particular field. For us in Canada to develop a greater research and development capacity, especially among Canadian-controlled businesses and smaller businesses, we put in place a series of tax incentives which are proving to be of great benefit to the development of Canadian technology. I am surprised that the NDP sets itself against such a policy, but I am afraid it is typical of the attitude of that Party in recent years, a subject which I will return to in a few moments.
Regarding capital investment, surely the Hon. Member recognizes that the accumulation of capital is an essential element to further growth in our economy. The incentives in the April, 1983 Budget, for example the tax carryforwards and the tax carrybacks or the other forms of tax credit, are intended to channel and encourage investment during the medium term. The Hon. Member says he does not see the

February 14, 1984

Supply
immediate impact. Indeed, no one suggests that he would. I will return for a moment to that point as well.
Regarding small business, evidently the Hon. Member opposite does not regard small business as the principal generator of jobs in our economy. It is not only the principal generator of jobs in our economy, it is also the sector of our economy with the highest degree of Canadian control and it often generates in a most innovative way the high technology we need here in Canada. Yet the tax incentives, for example, a lower tax rate for small business, is evidently anathema to the Hon. Member. He rejects the idea there should be a tax incentive for investment for small business here in Canada.
On any of those three grounds, Mr. Speaker, whether research and development, capital investment or tax incentives for small business, I think the Hon. Member fails utterly to make his case against what he in a pejorative way calls tax hand-outs. There is underneath his statement, however, a rather more fundamental issue which he has never been able to quite reconcile in his own mind: the role of profits in our society. After all, corporate profits, along with persona! savings, are a crucial source of funding for investment in our economy. The accumulation of capital through profits plays an essential role in the further expansion and growth of our economy. Yet the Hon. Member speaks of profits as if they were something that top-hatted capitalists put in their pockets and somehow the benefits are never seen throughout the economy but merely relate to the individual entrepreneur or businessman whom the Member seems to suspect of all sorts of nefarious dealings.
The point is that our economy cannot function without the accumulation of capital, and the principal way of accumulating capital is through corporate profits. On the one hand, the Hon. Member apparently wants lower personal income tax rates, while at the same time, with the removal of what he regards as bad tax incentives, he would raise the corporate tax rate. He cannot have it both ways.
If we want more investment in our economy, if we want more growth in our economy, if we want to create jobs in our economy, which I am sure all Members in the House believe, then it must follow that corporations must have the opportunity to reinvest their profits and, indeed, in some instances, be offered incentives to reinvest those profits.
If I might digress for one moment, once again the Hon. Member opposite, as is his wont, attacked bank profits. That is one of his favourite chestnuts and I must say that I get a little weary of it. The Member should understand that, according to the Bank Act and under the regulations of the Inspector General of Banks, the system of reporting bank profits is substantially different from that of reporting any other form of business profits in Canada. The Member should know that the accounting practices followed by banks in Canada are different from those of other businesses, the most critical difference being the accounting treatment which applies to a bank's loan losses. Those losses in the case of banks are spread over a
much longer period and are required to be spread over a much longer period than in any other form of business. Therefore, of course, it appears in certain circumstances that bank profits are at a substantially higher rate than in other forms of business, which is simply a matter of different accounting practices and not a matter of banks somehow making exorbitant profits on the backs of the poor worker.


Mr. Orlikow:: Tell us why they do not pay taxes.


Nelson Andrew Riis: No taxes. Absolutely none. They made $300 million in profits.


Roy MacLaren: Our friends opposite ask about the companies that do not pay taxes.


David Orlikow: The banks.


Roy MacLaren: I dealt with that the other day. The fact is that there are large numbers of companies that make a loss in one year or another, as individuals may suffer a loss of income in one year or another. In our tax system, in the name of equity, there is an evening out of losses and profits over certain specified periods.
As I suggested earlier, there are incentives for companies and for investment in the form of tax carried forward and tax carried back. Thus, there are also incentives in the form of various tax credits. The conjunction of a tax carried loss and a tax credit can mean that in any given year a bank or a business may not pay a profit.
Is the Member opposite suggesting that in any given year a corporation or an individual should pay exactly what he or she earned or lost in that year and the tax rate should be applied without any reference to an earlier year or a future year? If he suggests that, the rate of bankruptcy among corporations and hardship for individuals would increase substantially. I would be surprised if that is what he has in mind.
I think the essential problem with the Hon. Member's motion and indeed with is speech is one that faces his Party as a whole. I do not know whether Professor Laxer is still a member of the New Democratic Party but he certainly has been for a number of years. He summed up very well the difficulty that faces the Member opposite when he attempts to deal with the question of tax incentives and corporate profits.
Professor Laxer, in his interesting report on the present state of the NDP, said that the NDP wants to leave the bulk of productive enterprise in the private sector. Favouring tax incentives to business, even with very precise performance guarantees included, reminds New Democrats too much of give-aways to business. Professor Laxer continued to say that in practice the NDP does not believe that there are problems on the productive side of the economy but believes that the chief problem is the absence of sufficient consumer demand. He believes that the NDP rejects the idea that there should be tax incentives, yet does not know what else to put in its place. It has no policies. It has no suggestions to make. Professor Laxer says that the chief problem is to work out ways to direct the savings of Canadians into the sectors of the economy that

February 14, 1984

have the most promise for growth. Yet the NDP has no idea of or no proposals for how that might best be done. They speak only about redistribution of income and do not offer one constructive suggestion about how we should encourage investment in Canada.
Professor Laxer, himself an NDP member presumably, said that if Canadian-owned manufacturing companies were offered a choice between a high corporate tax if profits are not usefully reinvested and a lower one if useful investments are made-that is to say, tax incentives, or tax loopholes, or tax hand-outs, as the Hon. Member opposite says-they will make the second choice.
Professor Laxer proceeded to give his advice to the NDP and I would join him in offering this advice-


Mr. Sargeant:: Liberal advice.


Roy MacLaren: -to that Party which seems to be in such a state of mental sterility these days. Professor Laxer urges that companies should be given corporate tax points off, that is to say, tax incentives, if they purschase Canadian machinery, carry out research and development, deploy new and more productive techniques, train workers for skilled jobs and encourage advancement for women.


Mr. Kristiansen:: The word is "if'.


Roy MacLaren: Those are all things our present system of tax incentives provide in this country.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: They are awash with tax give-aways.


Roy MacLaren: For the Hon. Member opposite to say that tax incentives are somehow a dreadful and evil practice overlooks this whole issue. It is typical of the state of his Party today. As Professor Laxer says, it stands on the sidelines as far as this great debate about the future is concerned. He said it is time for the Party to face the future and enter the debate.
Since the Hon. Member has a contribution to make, I would urge him to address the real questions in our economy. Instead of being preoccupied, as he always seems to be, with the question of distribution rather than production, let him tell us if he has some answers for what he thinks should be done about the adaptation of the resource industry in Canada, our forest industry and our mineral industry, to new technologies, to new markets and to new competition.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You take the money and put it into Liberal ridings.


Roy MacLaren: Why does his Party not address the central question in our economy and in our society, which is the adaptation of our work force to high technology?


Mr. Fulton:: You are in government. You do not have a policy.


Roy MacLaren: Why does the Member opposite not speak about training? Does he have anything to say about training of people in our economy?
Supply


James Ross Fulton: Let us hear your policies.


Roy MacLaren: Most of all, we are doing all those things-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order. May I suggest to Members on my far left that they will have the opportunity for questions or comments in a few minutes. They might try to maintain some order while the Minister is speaking.


Roy MacLaren: We, in the Government, on this side of the House, are doing something else. We are recognizing the fact that the future growth in the Canadian economy depends directly on our international competitiveness. Our ability to produce goods and services more efficiently is a real answer to our future prosperity. For that reason we have put in place methods to consult and co-operate with business, labour and government in novel and exciting ways which we think are the real answers to the questions that the Member attempted to raise this morning but utterly failed to address.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister about precisely the point on which he attempted to criticize our Party. We have never said that unemployment can be greatly alleviated simply by increasing consumption. What we said about tax incentives and how corporations are taxed is that blunderbuss give-aways do not actually improve productivity.
People of Canada are told every day by government and industry that we must improve productivity to get jobs. Let me give the Minister some specific examples of what happens. Bell Canada recently spent hundreds of millions of dollars to take control of TransCanada PipeLines. Edper in recent years has taken over Brascan, Noranda, some trust companies and some insurance companies. That was done because of the capital it was able to accumulate as a result of the kind of tax policies and loopholes we have.
I would like the Minister to tell us how any of these takeovers have produced one new job or caused an improvement in productivity. It was great for the people who control these companies. It increased the financial worth of the companies. But how did these takeovers improve the economy? How did these takeovers improve productivity and how did these takeovers create one new job?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member seems to have a bias against large corporations. He is welcome to that bias. That is his own concern. We on this side of the House, however, see benefit both in large corporations and in small business to the total society. Some of the mergers and acquisitions that took place over past years may, on analysis, seem to the critics to be of limited benefit publicly. Others may seem to be equally of very real benefit. Synergism can come from mergers, corporate rationalization and new sources of capital can be accumulated for further investment. The ability to compete abroad with large corporations from other countries can be enhanced through merger and acquisition policies. The question was addressed extensively some years ago in the

February 14, 1984
Supply
Bryce Royal Commission on mergers and acquisitions in the Canadian economy.
1 see the Hon. Member opposite decrying all such mergers and acquisitions as if they were to be somehow prevented and deplored. I do not share that view. As I have said, they can bring very real benefit to our society as a whole if we have some large corporations capable of competing internally and marshalling the resources necessary to exploit our various talents and natural resources.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question. The motion implies that the New Democratic Party would like employment creation funds distributed on the basis of local employment levels. We have heard the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) on numerous occasions tell us that Canada Works funds are distributed to constituencies on the basis of an objective formula, one based on employment rates and unemployment rates in different ridings.
I have a difficulty, and I would like some comment from the Minister on it. I have certain knowledge that once every 10 years in a census we collect data. It tells us how many people are employed and how many people are unemployed in every riding and community in the country. However, in between those 10-year periods, nobody, no agency of government,- including Stats Canada, and Employment and Immigration- collects unemployment data or employment data on the basis of local communities or on the basis of ridings. The dilemma is how can we distribute funds on the basis of an objective formula when we do not have data anywhere in Canadian society which would enable us to do that, except once every 10 years? How can the Government think it is doing an objective job when the data base is simply not available?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I believe one of my colleagues will be speaking to the broad question which the Hon. Member raised a moment ago. On the specific question of compilation of data, it had been my understanding that the Unemployment Insurance Commission as well as Statistics Canada does compile interim statistics between decennial censes. If I can assist the Hon. Member in that regard, I would be pleased to provide him with some information. I will seek it and obtain it for him.


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, it will probably come as a bit of a surprise to our friends in the New Democratic Party if I tell them at the outset that, although we have some slight difficulty with the wording of the motion put by the NDP and although we feel it requires a little fine tuning, we intend to support it.
In an effort to provide that fine tuning and in an effort to make the motion more precise, to eliminate some of the obfuscation, ambiguity and uncertainty of the motion, we intend, and I do so now before the clock overtakes me, to move an amendment. I hope this amendment will lend itself to the NDP because I think it strengthens and substantially improves the motion as well as addresses some of the concerns raised during the course of the debate.
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes):
That the motion be amended by deleting the period after the words "levels" and adding the following thereafter: "instead of focusing on job creation programs open to all eligible Canadians, such as career access and refundable employment tax credits".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: If the Hon. Member will continue debate, the Chair will consider the amendment and reserve a decision on it.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make sure, given the limited amount of time we have in these debates, that I would not be overtaken by the clock before I had an opportunity to move my amendment. I am sure you will find it in order.
It is rather interesting that the very substance of my amendment was addressed in an intervention by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans), who in a previous incarnation suffered under the terrible strain of being Parliamentary Secretary to the former Minister of Finance. Although we did not always agree with the Member, we had great admiration for the way he went across the country trying to defend the indefensible.
He put forward this question in his intervention. Why are jobs not being created in the private sector? That is precisely the nature of the amendment that we have put forward. We believe that, through the mechanism of a refundable employment tax credit, we can focus on the specific problems within the work force.
For example, a refundable employment tax credit has the ability of being able to focus on youth unemployment, which is a serious problem. We have over 500,000 young people unemployed in Canada today. That rate of unemployment among young people is static. It has remained so for the past 15 or 16 months, representing as it does some 20 per cent of the work force. A refundable tax credit would have the advantage of being able to focus on youth unemployment in a direct way and provide permanent-and I underline the word perma-ment-meaningful, jobs within the private sector.
There is one area on which I agree with the Minister. It is this. He said in reply to a member of the New Democratic Party that small business is the biggest generator of jobs in our economy. We in the Conservative Party support that thesis and are prepared to back it up. That is why we have put forward this policy.
It is important to understand why it is necessary to bring in a refundable employment tax credit. I was rather surprised to hear the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren) talk about economic recovery. I suppose we will hear more about that in the Budget tomorrow when we hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) talk about economic recovery. But the Minister of State for Finance seemed to get carried away. In the euphoria he has created around this area of economic recovery, he talked about an improvement in the unemployment situation.
February 14, 1984

There has not been an improvement. If you take the average unemployment rate for 1982, the depth of the recession, it was 11.1 per cent in that calendar year. In 1983 that rate rose to 11.9 per cent. These are Statistics Canada figures which were released in January of this year. We see for the last quarter of 1983 the unemployment rate remaining static at 11.1 per cent and actually rising in January, 1984 to 11.2 per cent. All this was happening at a time when unemployment in the United States, year over year, month over month, was actually declining. In 1983 over 1982, unemployment in the United States actually fell by 2 percentage points. In every month of the last quarter when unemployment in Canada was locked in at 11.1 per cent, unemployment in the U.S. kept coming down one or two points to the stage where it is now at 8 per cent, and it will probably break the 8 per cent rate in the figures to be released next month.
1 am afraid, indeed we are afraid, that the Minister of Finance will rise tomorrow and talk about economic recovery. He will talk about how the economy is growing. He will boast about how successful his policies have been in bringing down the rate of inflation. In the process he will forget the fact that the seasonally adjusted 11.2 per cent of the work force unemployed at the present time represents 1,400,000 Canadians without jobs. Included in that figure are two groups of particular concern, the two groups that have been hardest hit by the recession and indeed are being hardest hit by the structural change which is taking place in the economy as a result of the technological revolution brought on by the microchip. These are young people wo seem to be permanently unemployed, because the figure has stabilized at around 18 per cent to 20 per cent over the last 15 months. We are told by the OECD that that will continue in the next two years. The other group is the older, middle-aged worker who faces the problem of having to undergo retraining in order to cope with technological change and at the same time has to face the prospect of moving elsewhere in the country, if indeed there is any hope of finding a job.
These are the two groups that are being left behind. It is morally irresponsible to talk about economic recovery when we have these unemployed people in Canada, when we have a lost generation of over a half a million young people without jobs for the past two years, and when we have this middle-aged group of males, heads of families, who are the hardest hit and represent some of the most chronic, long-term unemployed without job prospects. This is why we believe there should be a refundable tax credit in the Budget tomorrow. It is not a new idea. It has been tried before, and it has been tried successfully.
I would like to refer to the 1982 publication of the Economic Council of Canada entitled: "In Short Supply-Jobs and Skills in the 1980s". In terms of the employment tax credit, its recommendation 11 reads:
We recommend that the federal Government institute a short-run direct employment creation program in the private sector, based on the employment
Supply
tax credit system and targeted at those groups who bear a disproportionate burden of unemployment.
Then it went on to back that up by referring to our brief experience in the past with the refundable tax credit. At page 107 we see:
As for the scale of the program, we note simply that in its last year the ETCP provided roughly 50,000 jobs at a cost of about $100 million.
We are talking about permanent jobs. We are talking about revenue-creating jobs, because these people will be returning money to the exchequer in the form of taxes.
Let us compare that with the Government's NEED Program for the same year. The NEED Program is rather interesting because it was designed to help probably the most pathetic of the unemployed, the so-called exhaustee or the person whose unemployment insurance benefits have expired. It was built around providing a short-term job just long enough in duration to enable the person so employed to qualify for unemployment insurance. The NEED Program created 40,000 jobs from 1982 to 1984 at a cost of $500 million. Here we have the refundable employment tax credit scheme producing 50,000 jobs at a cost of $100 million. That is taken from a report of the Canada Employment and Insurance Commission of June, 1983.
If we take a look at the total direct job-creation programs of the federal Government for fiscal year 1982-83, we see 215,000 jobs created at a cost of $609 million. The point which has to be emphasized is that these are short-term jobs with a duration of anywhere from 12 weeks to 16 weeks. What we want are permanent jobs. Our people who are unemployed want permanent jobs. That is the substance of our amendment.
It is interesting that the Economic Council of Canada came back to it again in its 1983 report, the Twentieth Annual Review entitled "On the Mend". It talked about recovery and about the problem of unemployment as well as the danger of the unemployed being left behind. Essentially it repeated what it said in its recommendation. Page 104 reads:
Such a program would not be new; it has already been tried in many forms, both in Canada and elsewhere. The principal target population of the program would be those who bear a disproportionate share of the unemployment burden, particularly the long-term unemployed.
Again it recommended to the Government that it bring in a refundable job-creation tax credit. We are in fact committed to the proposition-and we agree with the Minister of State for Finance-that the private sector and that part of the private sector known as the small business sector have the greatest potential to produce jobs, not only to produce jobs but to produce permanent jobs.
Another area of the NDP motion deals with what I believe to be one of the most scandalous, sleazy, reprehensible, partisan abuses which the country has seen in this Parliament for a long time. I am talking about the slush fund or the porkbarrel which has been the subject of questions in the House for the last week or so. Let us take a look at the genesis of that program. It first emerged in the June 28, 1982 Budget of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen). At that time it was known as the Immediate Employment Stimulation Grants Program.

February 14, 1984
Supply
On November 16, 1982 the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), as reported on page 20694 of Hansard, asked for details of the program. The Minister of Employment and Immigration at that time replied by indicating that it "is not a program" so much as "an allocation of funds that were set aside in the June Budget" and "allocated to a number of different Departments to fund projects which were on the shelf or which could be funded directly through them". He went on to suggest Order Paper questions, and I am not sure whether questions were placed on the Order Paper-I see my colleague nodding his head. But the questions were never answered.
On November 30, 1982 and again on January 21, 1983 the Hon. Member for Rosedale raised further questions. Then we had the April Budget of the present Minister of Finance. A full year has gone by and we know nothing about the program. We know nothing about the criteria of the program. Information has been denied to the Official Opposition through oral and written questions by our official critic, the Hon. Member for Rosedale. A whole year has gone by and $150 million in public funds have been spent without any accountability whatsoever to the House.
It emerged again in the long Budget of April, 1983 wherein it reads:
A further $150 million will be provided for increased spending on local employment intensive projects.
The program now appears in the Budget papers under a new name. The name has been changed. It is now called the Special Employment Initiatives Program.
I am not going to bore the House with any other details in terms of the genesis of the scandal, which is what it is, except to bring the House up to November 29, 1983 when we asked questions in committee to find out more details about this program. Press releases were coming out and they were very interesting. I have a whole handful of them but I will just refer to a couple of them. I quote:
Swift Current: Senator Hazen Argue, Saskatchewan's representative in the national Cabinet, announced Monday a $100,000 federal grant toward the completion of the community arena in Cabri.
Congratulations, Cabri, 1 hope you got your arena. Where was the Member of Parliament for that constituency? Not only was he not given the courtesy of advance notice, he was not even consulted, as is the case in all other existing programs.
I go on to Senator Olson, the Cabinet representative for Alberta. I quote from a release of October 8, 1982:
Senator Bud Olson, Leader of the Government in the Senate, announced today a federal government grant in the amount of $1 million to the Canadian Hostelling Association (Alberta Association).
Again there is no reference whatsoever to the Albertan Members of Parliament who sit in this House. It goes on and on and on. In a committee of this House, we were denied information on this program. We were denied criteria as to how this program applies. The Deputy Minister of Employment and Immigration, in reply to my colleague from Kingston
and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), said: "I believe the criteria will be provided in the next day or so". In reply to a question I asked, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) said in the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration on November 29:
I think there is only really one thing I can say to you: When you receive the criteria, if you believe there are some useful projects in your area which would meet the criteria, you send me the suggestions and I will consider them.
I thought that was a generous offer at the time, although I was concerned that there may be no money left in the kitty because at that time $138 million of the $150 million in the Lalonde budget had already been spent on 844 programs, some of which I just quoted announced by Liberal Senators.
I took the Minister at his word. In my province the unemployment rate is 20 per cent and 42 per cent of the work force is on unemployment insurance. I was grasping. I wanted to take the Minister at his word. I waited and I waited and I waited. I asked the Minister a question in the House on January 17. Again he said it was a fast-track program and that he would supply me with the criteria in a few days.
When did we get the criteria? We got the criteria on February 2. Yesterday we were told in the House by the Minister of Finance that we did not get it until February 2 because he was not satisfied with it, it was rather obscure, it was not clear. He was not quite satisfied with it, yet it was good enough to provide funding for Liberal Members of Parliament and Liberal constituencies. It was good enough to allocate $288 million on unclear, unrefined criteria. Now, before he can give the criteria to us so that we can take advantage of the program, the Minister finds it has to have some fine tuning. We finally get it on February 2. The program is probably dead because there is no money left in it.
I will make you a wager, Mr. Speaker. I am prepared to bet any amount that we will see that porkbarrel emerge again in tomorrow's Budget under another name. You watch for it, Mr. Speaker, because it will be there.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Chair has considered the amendment submitted by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and finds it in order. There is now a ten-minute period for questions, answers and comments.


Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) for moving this motion today. In view of the comments of the previous speaker from the Conservative Party, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That this House continue to sit through the lunch hour for the purpose of continuing consideration of Supply Motion No. 5.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Chair has considered the proposition of the Hon. Member and finds it to be in accordance with Standing Order 8(4)(a). Those opposed to the motion will please rise.
And less than 25 members having risen:
February 14, 1984


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Less than 25 members having risen, the motion is considered adopted. There is now a ten-minute period for questions or comments. Debate.


Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the amendment made by my colleague for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), I thought I might spend my time on this matter today dealing with the question of the refundable employment tax credit. The essence of the amendment made by my friend is to ensconce in our job-creation program in the private and public sector the idea of the refundable employment tax credit. There are a number of features to that idea which need to be brought to the attention of the House.
As the Hon. Member for St. John's East pointed out, and it is worth underlining, it is important to understand that with the refundable tax credit we will have an opportunity, simply stated, to create more jobs for the amount of money expended. That is not simply our idea: it is the understanding of the Economic Council of Canada which is why, on two separate occasions in two different reports, they made it clear that we have to move away from direct job creation and toward a refundable tax credit idea. They recommended it irrespective of party politics or consideration of any politics. They recommended it as an efficient way in which we could create more jobs for less money expended.
There are some other advantages to the refundable employment tax credit, Mr. Speaker. It can allow us to target specific groups who are being hurt more than others as a consequence of the recession and economic change over time. As my hon. friend from St. John's East mentioned, we could aid the over one-half million unemployed young people and older workers who find themselves without an opportunity. I could also mention disabled people. The great flexibility of the refundable employment tax credit is that it allows us to deal with specific groups which are being hurt more than others. It also creates permament jobs. Time and again we have heard ministers of employment, as well as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), talk about the incredible amount of money being spent and the tremendous number of jobs going to be created as a consequence. They have acronyms for these job programs. People wonder why, after all the money being spent and all the promises for jobs, we have fewer and fewer jobs as more and more programs are put in place by the Government. In the long run people are not looking for short-term jobs. Anyone who has responsibility will take any job if he does not have one. However, people are looking for permanent jobs. That is a feature of the refundable employment tax credit.
Perhaps even more importantly, the refundable tax credit is related to on-the-job training. It can be related to specific sectors of our economy and allow us to combine the Refundable Tax Credit with specific job training. It also allows us to participate in private sector economic growth and development rather than one-shot, short-term, summer-winter jobs. It allows us to deal with the question of technological change as economic sectors develop.
Supply
That is why our Party has always supported the refundable employment tax credit, Mr. Speaker. It allows us to create more jobs for less money. It allows us to target certain groups which are hurt more than others. It allows us to combine it with on-the-job training so that people can see permanent jobs in the future in a dynamic and expanding economy. It allows us to deal in specific sectors with the growth and development of those. That is very important at this time in the history of this country because we are living in a time when technological change, particularly in the communications field, is overwhelming us. Less and less people find the opportunity for training programs which will give them real jobs. That is why the motion put forward by my friend, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), as a amendment to the main motion should commend itself to all Members of the House, irrespective of party. It is an idea that is espoused by the Economic Council of Canada and by anyone who has any objective understanding of what is before us in making sure that we bring some growth back to the Canadian economy and expand it to create jobs in the country.
There is another reason we support the refundable employment tax credit as the best method of job creation. Any objective observer would look at the track record of job-creation programs put out by successive Ministers of Employment in the Government for the past three and one half years and see that they have been terribly mismanaged. As the Government constantly extols the programs and talks about the amount of money it is putting into the employment creation fund, at the end of it we have fewer jobs now than we did last year and an unemployment rate of 11.2 per cent. All of those programs, words, and self-puffery which have come from Ministers of the Crown for the past three and one half years have given us a record of job creation in both the public and private sector which is one of the lowest in the western world.
Outside of the other matters contained in the motion, I hope that this amendment by the Member for St. John's East will be agreed to by Members of the House. Mr. Speaker, a refundable employment tax credit is an idea that should be supported by all Parties. You are going to find it in place very soon because the logic and importance of it to so many people who are unemployed is undeniable.
Outside of the virtues of the refundable employment tax credit, it allows us to get around the problem which we have had for the past three years with the Government. The Government has mismanaged job-creation funding in terms of the increasing unemployment rate and loss of jobs. It has also converted job-creation funds to its own political purposes. For the past three years we have had questions raised by my friend, the Hon. Member for St. John's East, and myself when 1 was the employment critic for our Party. In November of 1982 I asked for the criteria for the program which was being used for Liberal patronage at that time. Fifteen months ago, in November, 1982 I asked the Government by written question in the House to table the criteria and details of the slush fund of that time. Fifteen months later the public has yet to receive

February 14, 1984
Supply
that information. The Government has denied that information to me, our Party, the House and the public.
That information is important. It will show that the Government has for the past three years been consistently using job-creation funds for its own political purposes. That is why it is unwilling to provide the information fifteen months later. That is why in the past few weeks we have again been trying to get information on the new Liberal patronage job-creation fund.
I would like to use one case in point, Mr. Speaker. On December 8, 1983 a press release was issued. It said: "Mrs. Ursula Appolloni announces $230,000 grant for Covenant House". In that press release Ursula Appolloni, the Member for York-South Western, announced that she had secured $230,000 for Covenant House in Toronto. Mr. Speaker, Covenant House is in the riding of Rosedale, which riding I represent. The grant was made to the Toronto Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church. I know the people there very well and I phoned them the other day. I asked when it was that Mrs. Appolloni, the Member for York South-Weston-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order. This is the second time the Hon. Member has referred to another Member of the House by name. Will he refer to the Member by her riding?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, 1 was using the press release put out by the Hon. Member and it refers to "Mrs. Ursula Appolloni".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: If I may say so, that is no explanation. Beauchesne is very clear that quoting a document that is unparliamentary does not make the quote more parliamentary. It must be adapted to the procedures of the House.


David Edward Crombie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The importance of this is that yesterday in the House the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) indicated quite clearly that the criteria were prepared "a bit before Christmas". The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni) had been negotiating with the Toronto Archdiocese since late October in order to give them funding of $230,000. Throughout that time I was with the Minister's officials in Toronto on three occasions, October 14, November 4 and December 3, negotiating for some 32 projects under Canada Works and Section 38. Throughout all that time the Minister's officials did not mention at all that any funding was available through some other fund in the Minister's care. This morning I telephoned the Minister's officials and asked them if at any time during the time I had been negotiating for funding for 32 projects in my riding they had any knowledge of the Minister's fund. The answer was no. I then asked when they found out about the Minister's fund. They said not until late January. These are the Minister's officials.
What I and the people of my riding want to know is, while I am negotiating on their behalf with the Minister's officials, who have no knowledge of any other job-creation fund and no criteria for any other fund, how is it that the Hon. Member for York South-Weston can go into my riding, and presumably any other riding, and negotiate a project with a particular group? What does that mean to representative government?
The Hon. Member for York South-Weston is not the Member for Rosedale. During the time 1 am negotiating 32 projects on behalf of my constituents, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston walks in and spends $230,000 on one project.
The projects I am talking about are not small items, Mr. Speaker. I am talking about the North Jarvis Community Newspaper, the Open Door Centre Self Help projects, project Outreach, and I have a proposal for job creation in Regent Park.
Is it any wonder that people are becoming cynical? They smell corruption. That is the shortest word I know and that is what it is. It is a shame that the Minister of Employment and Immigration will not understand what he is doing.


James Aloysius McGrath: He is not even in the House.


David Edward Crombie: It is one thing to talk about Liberal members getting money early for projects in their own ridings, which is bad enough; it is not fair, it is not right and it is not honest, but they have been doing it for so long that people have come to expect it. What is different about this is that they are not just loading up patronage in their own ridings but in ridings held by others. A Liberal did not get elected in the riding of Rosedale; I was elected in the riding of Rosedale. I work very hard for those people and when I am negotiating with the Minister's officials, they are ignorant, as I am, of the fact that the Minister allows the Hon. Member for York South-Weston to negotiate a project in my riding.
I do not know what the Government intends to do about this. I do not know what the Minister of Employment and Immigration, who comes from Metropolitan Toronto, intends to do with it. But I can tell you that there is a smell that the people in Metropolitan Toronto recognize. It is even worse than the ancient smell of Liberal patronage and Liberal corruption. The Liberals now think that they do not even have to get elected in order to run the Government-they just have to know the Minister. They do not even have to go through the criteria like everyone else, apply like everybody else or go through some public process of the normal democratic system; all they have to do is know the Minister. When we come to the stage we have now, Mr. Speaker, the people in the country know that it is time for the Government to go.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration should resign, Mr. Speaker. There is no longer a shred of credibility in anything he has to say. We have a minister of the Crown who says that the criteria for his program were not developed until a bit before Christmas, yet he has a member of the Liberal caucus negotiating with someone in my riding in
February 14, 1984

October. People in my riding are not going to stand for that any longer, Mr. Speaker.
The reason we need the employment tax credit is not only that it provides more jobs for less money, not only that it allows us to target on groups hurt by unemployment, not only allows us to have on-the-job training combined with the tax credit but, far more important, it allows the people of Canada to have some sense that the Government is honest. It keeps Liberal hands off the money and that is what people want.


Mr. Anguish:: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to ask the Hon. Member a question about a topic brought up by a member of the Conservative Party from Calgary. He talked about the way in which the rate of unemployment is set across the country. I feel that the system is faulty. For example, in the last year that we had community development projects my constituents received about $980,000; this year it was changed to Canada Works projects and the constituency allocation was $100,000. We were told this was because the base rate of unemployment for the area was below the average and therefore we received only the basic $100,000. In the northern part of my riding, however, there are many native communities with unemployment in excess of 90 per cent; 10 per cent is not the unemployment rate but the unemployment rate in many of those communities.
To determine the unemployment rate, Statistics Canada conducts a telephone survey across the country but very few calls are made to some of the remote, northern areas and native areas where few people have telephones. I think this is a fault in the method of determining the real rate of unemployment.
1 wonder if the Hon. Member who just spoke has some ideas on how the Conservative Party, if it were the Government of Canada, would determine the actual unemployment rate for
all areas.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the first part of the Hon. Member's question, I believe I made clear my own view that the Government's course of action with respect to job creation is both incompetent in terms of its management and corrupt in terms of its practice. It seems to me the most important thing is to make sure we have a mechanism which allows us to deal with some certainty in terms of employment needs.
I feel one mechanism which has just had birth, and which could be dealt with more effectively, is the Labour Market Institute. The Labour Market Institute has at least the beginnings of a capability for identification of specific areas in a far greater way than the mechanism used by the Government.
I may say as well that as it stands now, when we are dealing with the number of people I have in my own riding-and I, along with the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), have the largest number of people in the country-what we do now is look at both the Canada Works program and Section 38. Section 38 funding in my riding was $70,000, almost as much
Supply
as the original $100,000. The process right now is inappropriate, mismanaged and corrupt. I believe what we need to do is look at an extension of the opportunities provided by the Labour Market Institute.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in this debate today with perhaps a little more enthusiasm than I have had at other times because I have an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, for 20 minutes, to put on the public record, to put into Hansard and to put out through the television medium, some of the facts of the backroom manipulation of the Prime Minister's Office in relation to a particular $300 million secret slush fund. I mentioned in the House last Friday, supported by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), that on Thursday there came into our possession some documentation which helped us begin to understand the secret nature of the use of these funds for partisan political purposes, the secret nature of the use of these funds in a manner which makes a mockery of the attempts by the Government to assert that it cares one whit about the unemployed in this country.
I am going to provide to Hansard and will read into the record some significant portions of the material which became available to my office last Thursday. The first quotation I will read into the record refers back to the early days of this program in 1982, when it had a different title. Today it is called the Special Employment Initiatives Program. I will read just one short paragraph out of the minutes of the meeting of the group which was charged with the responsibility of putting this program in operation:
The projects have been generally selected for their local impact. Speedy implementation is critical as the emphasis is on immediate employment. It was also emphasized that, at this stage, confidentiality is required.
"Confidentiality is required", Mr. Speaker. Anyone listening to me today can phone a Canada Manpower Centre anywhere in the country-close to two years later-and ask for information on this program and, Mr. Speaker, it is not available. It has not been available to all Members of Parliament since the day it was announced in the Budget. It has been available to Liberal Members of Parliament. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) admitted, yes; other Members of Parliament, no; Canadian citizens, no. It was available simply to Liberal Members of Parliament. We have asked, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order. May I ask the Hon. Member to clarify and describe the source of the document from which he is quoting?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I will provide the documents to Hansard. As to the source of the document, they came into my hands through people inside the Conservative Party whom I trust.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Hon. Member knows that the rules require that documents quoted in the House be described. The description which the Hon. Member has given is absolutely not acceptable.

February 14, 1984
Supply


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, they are internal documents to the secretariat, the civil servants and political staff of different Ministers. It is an internal document which was circulated to people who attended a meeting. It is in the form of minutes, Mr. Speaker. Okay?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order. No, I cannot accept "okay". The rules are very clear on this. If the Hon. Member is to quote any more documents, he has to describe these documents in a recognizable fashion, not calling them "committees" or "groups" or "confidential". Is that clear?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, that presents certain difficulties to a Member of Parliament. I will describe them as five pages which I have in my possession, which I will table, and from which I intend to quote. Is that adequate, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Waddell:: What is the title?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Hon. Member will be allowed to quote from a document if he describes the document. This is a long-standing tradition of this House. I am not coming up with a new item which is unknown to Hon. Members. If the Hon. Member is not able to describe the source of the document, he will kindly refrain from quoting from it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: If you are going to table it, describe it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, may I have the unanimous consent of the House to table this document and let Hon. Members decide?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is there unanimous consent to table the document?
[ Translation]


Mr. Laniel:: Mr. Speaker, under the Standing Orders the Hon. Member has no right to table documents. Only Ministers are entitled to do so. Otherwise, the Table would disappear under on avalanche of paper. The Standing Orders do not give Members the right to table documents, and the Hon. Member seems to be ashamed of this one since he is even afraid of identifying it!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I believe that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), is in the process of addressing a particular motion we now have before us, and in the course of his remarks is in fact reading into the record extracts from a document, which I feel is quite appropriate, with the greatest of deference. As the Hon. Member from the Government side has pointed out, there is only provision for the tabling of documents by Ministers of the Crown unless unanimous consent is obtained. We must interpret the rules to make sure that freedom of speech and freedom of a point of view, especially as it relates to Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, is not hindered. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that to restrict my colleague with respect to the presentation of his case by limiting his ability to
quote from a document would be a serious infringement on the right of speech of any Member of Parliament.
I understand that the point is that the rules must not be abused and we are not to read speeches. However, if these are documents in the Hon. Member's possession and he is prepared to stand behind these documents, there should be no reason at all why he is not able to quote from those documents, and quote extensively, as long as they are germane to this particular debate. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to exercise your discretion with respect to this matter and allow freedom of speech and not constrain Hon. Members in terms of a serious debate relating to the practices of this Government, which are under serious attack not only by Members of the House of Commons but by Canadians across this land.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. To assist the Chair, I believe the rules are clear that the Hon. Member has to have a name to the document. Was it Shakespeare who said "What's in a name?" Sometimes there is a lot in a name and perhaps the Hon. Member has a name for his document; for example, an internal memo dealing with employment practices, or an internal memo dealing with grants, or a memo from a particular Department. Surely the Hon. Member has to identify the document in some sort of way before he quotes from it. The Hon. Member should be able to do that if he is prepared to table the document.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, when the Chair makes its decision it should have in mind that the Hon. Member is not trying to hide anything. He has offered to table the document. It seems to me that ought to be sufficient. If that is going to be denied by the Government side, then it places the Hon. Member in a very awkward situation. He needs unanimous consent in order to table the document, and that may be denied by the Hon. Member across the way. The Hon. Member indicated that he is willing to have the document made public by offering to table it, and I hope the Speaker will take that into consideration when he makes his decision.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, to take up the point raised by the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie)-

-I want to bring to his attention the problem of how I can accept the tabling of a document when I have a Member in front of me who does not have the courage, or enough belief in the document to identify it. I am not ready to give my consent to tabling the document unless I know the identity of the document. If tabling is going to permit him to read a speech from that document because he has nothing to say in the debate, well, he is supposed to be here to make speeches in his own words, not by reading documents or quoting from unknown documents.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order. There are two points to be considered. First, the Hon. Member is asking for a
February 14, 1984

document to be tabled. We can deal with that; it is very simple and straightforward. Not being a Minister of the Crown, the Member should not normally be allowed to table a document, but he may do so if we have unanimous consent. The tabling of a document comes under a different Standing Order from that of quoting from it. Therefore, is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to table his document?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: An unknown document, no.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: So we do not have unanimous consent. The second point concerning quoting from a document is also very straightforward. I enjoin the Hon. Member to read Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 329(4), which says:
When quoting a letter in the House, a Member must be willing either to give the name of the author or to take full responsibility for the contents himself.
That means that if the Hon. Member is not willing to give the name of the author of the document, he has to say what is in the document as if he said it himself. He cannot refer to it as a document which originates from a nebulous committee. This being agreed, I ask the Hon. Member to resume his speech and abide by the rules.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I guess the way out of the dilemma is perhaps to put my imagination to work. If I had been at the meeting of the people responsible for these programs, if 1 had been charged with the task of taking minutes at that meeting, I think the following kinds of things would be what 1 might have written in those minutes which have reflected-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order. The Hon. Member cannot take lightly the ruling that I just made. He has to quote the document or refrain from referring to it as originating from a meeting or being the minutes of a group. He can say straight to the House what he has to say, but if he wants to quote the document he will have to identify it. Let us not try and circumvent the Standing Order; the Hon. Member does not quote the document or, if he does, he quotes the source.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, 1 hope this point of order does not eat into my time.


Some Hon. Members:: Yes!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, let me go back to where I started. There is a sense of confidentiality about these programs which is clear to everyone in the nation. For two years now we have not been able to find out from the Canada Manpower Centre how these funds are allocated. We have not been able to find out through committee hearings or through questions on the Order Paper. Therefore, there is absolutely no question that this is a secret fund of money which comes out of the budget and is allocated in some mysterious way.
Supply
I suggest the specific mechanism involved in the allocation of these funds, Mr. Speaker, puts the Prime Minister's Office, the backroom manipulators of the Liberal Party of Canada, at the very centre of the allocation process. I suggest to Members of this House that I personally have certain knowledge that in the original allocation of this money preceding the June, 1982 Budget, in planning for the spending of this money, the Prime Minister's Office, the backroom manipulators in the Prime Minister's office, were directly involved in screening projects into two streams. The projects were coming directly to the Prime Minister's Office and they were divided into two streams, and we ended up with two major programs. We had fast tracking for smaller local programs and the larger one for special capital construction. That decision was made by the backroom manipulators in the Prime Minister's Office on the basis of projects which came forward to them.
Point number two: Where did the projects come from? Did they come from Canadians generally? No, Mr. Speaker, they came from Ministers. Is that appropriate? In a general sense yes, it is. But these particular projects came forward to the backroom people in the Prime Minister's Office, primarily from the political Minister, the designated Ministers responsible for patronage in each of the ten provinces of Canada. That is where the essence of these projects came from.
The knowledge available to me tells me that when it came to a dilemma or a disagreement between a line Minister responsible for a budget, for example, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy), the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox), or the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts), when it came to a difference of opinion between the political Minister in a province and the line Minister responsible for the budgetary funds voted to that line Minister by Parliament, it was the opinion of the political Minister which would prevail in the expenditure of these funds. Does that or does that not constitute a serious violation of some of the basic principles which enable a democracy to work?
Information available to me, Mr. Speaker, talks about hard and soft projects. That information indicates that the civil servants gathered details on projects for funding once they are considered to be hard. What was a hard project? That was a project agreed to by the political Minister. At that point the civil servants were to gather information to enable them to defend that funding or spending decision after the decision was made. On soft projects, those which had not been approved by a political Minister, only headquarters was to gather information on those projects. All members of the committee, the normal civil service network, was not free to gather information on those projects until they had moved from the soft category to the hard category.
That whole system, Mr. Speaker, makes puppets out of line Ministers. We in this House of Commons go through the process of approving the Main Estimates. We put a line Minister up in front of the committee and examine his budgetary expenditure plan. We, as Members of Parliament accountable to the taxpayers of this country, do not see the political Ministers. We do not have a chance to ask them questions

February 14, 1984
Supply
about their expenditure plans for public funds. We do not see the backroom manipulators in the Prime Minister's Office before standing committees. We do not have a chance to ask them about their expenditure plans. There are line Ministers who come before the committee. We vote funds that are to be spent by those line Ministers for the purpose of their budgets. It is quite disappointing and shocking to discover that the expenditure of line departmental budgets is being determined by political Ministers.
I remind Members that in Canada today three of those political Ministers come from the Senate rather than the House of Commons. They do not have the authority that is vested in people who go through an electoral process. Is it right that people with that kind of mandate should be telling line Ministers how to spend a portion of their budget? It is similar to their being puppets. It is like turning line Ministers in the Government into eunuchs or puppets that do what they are told by political Ministers from the Senate in terms of their budgets which they were given through the democratic process in the House of Commons. It is a violation of basic principles and a plot worthy of the backroom manipulators in the Prime Minister's Office.
When dealing with communication about these projects, the first principle is to maintain secrecy until all decisions are made. At that time the signs are displayed and announcements from political Ministers about the funding are made. This is so they can take the credit. That is part of the communication plan. While it is kept secret from Members of Parliament and other Canadians, perhaps it can be shared with the presidents of riding associations of particular political persuasions. However, do not share it with all Members of Parliament. Who devised that plan? It came from a representative of the Prime Minister's Office meeting with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde).
Do Members in this Chamber feel that the Minister of Finance is the key player in the development of a communications strategy for the expenditure of $150 million that involves 1 5 Departments and is the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration? What on earth is the Minister of Finance doing developing a communication plan with a representative of the Prime Minister's Office? What facts are there to show Canadians and Members of Parliament that the process is one in which the Minister of Finance is in charge of asserting a communications strategy for the expenditure of $150 million of public funds? It is very unusual. I suggest that this allocation of $150 million a year is very peculiar. It is a secret slush fund. The employment it creates is a by-product of its basic purpose, which is the use of taxpayers' money for the political manipulation of the Canadian population.
This has always been the danger in the Government's approach to employment creation funds. If the Government is in the direct job-creation business, it should have advisory committees comprised of local people who decide who will and
who will not get a job. Any other system would simply put temptation into the hands of political Ministers. This secret $300 million slush fund is the clearest demonstration in my parliamentary career of the lack of wisdom in the present allocation process.
In 1981 I wrote to the Auditor General of Canada to suggest that a special audit on the methods of job fund allocation be undertaken at that time. That need is even more evident today. The Auditor General, as the servant of the House, is the only appropriate and unbiased source who has the legal and statutory authority to look into the question of whether funds voted by the House have been legally and properly spent with due regard to economy and efficiency. I hope that representatives of the Auditor General's office are listening to the debate today or perhaps reading the newspaper as this issue unfolds. I suggest that it is time for at least that inquiry.
If the Government believes that this is not a secret slush fund, that it is not susceptible to backroom manipulation from the Prime Minister's Office and if the Government believes it is appropriate for political Ministers to tell line Ministers how to spend their budgets, then why does the Government House Leader not stand this afternoon and make a recommendation for a public inquiry into the methods of deciding the expenditure of funds in the Special Employment Incentives Program and its immediate predecessor? If there is nothing to hide, then one would think that the Government would be anxious to clear its reputation by establishing such an all-parliamentary group and giving it the power to conduct a full and impartial inquiry.
It is time that we as Members of Parliament took our responsibilities seriously. It is time for the Government to permit us to fulfil those responsibilities. It is time for a public inquiry into the methods employed by the Liberal Party in the allocation of these particular employment creation funds.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Questions, comments and answers? Debate.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to take up the challenge issued by the previous speaker and be very specific about job-creation programs. I will identify and quote from specific material and I think the House will realize that there is something quite wrong with the allocation of these grants.
I conducted my own inquiry into the methods of allocation with respect to one particular grant. It pertains to this debate because our finance critic, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), has included in his motion a condemnation of the Government for "allocating job-creation funds in a partisan fashion not based upon local employment levels".
I want to refer to a grant of $583,000 that was given to a group in Toronto allegedly to conduct social services. However, as I go through this material it will become evident what it is really for. The group is called the Canadian Alliance for Italian Integration and Culture. They call themselves the
February 14, 1984

Alliance Community Services. I believe they are located at a storefront office at 3271 Dufferin Street in Toronto, Ontario.
First, 1 want to refer to a document from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations of the Province of Ontario. These are letters patent for the incorporation of the Canadian Alliance for Italian Integration and Culture. The number of the letter of incorporation is 540,758. It appears that this organization was incorporated on February 18, 1983. The group is a charitable organization with an address at 295 College Street, Suite 300, in Toronto. The group is to do charitable work, and so on, for ethnic communities with particular reference to the Italian community. The document is available and I will seek leave later to table it.
The document makes reference to the board of directors. I want Hon. Members to notice specifically three names; Giacomo Capitanio; Giuseppe Volpe or Joe Volpe, an educator, and Albina Maria Guarnieri, who is listed as a director of communications. They are all from Toronto. There are another six people listed. I want the House to be particularly interested in the three names I have mentioned. I will come back to them and they will appear again in my documents. That society is set up to undertake work on behalf of the Italian Canadian Community in February.
My second paper, which I made reference to in the House yesterday, is a discussion paper on integration and the Italian community's relations with the Liberal Party. I will not read the whole document but I will make reference to one of the main parts. I quote:
Reach out into the community through an office established in an area where Italians are most numerous so as to identify needs and to minister to them.
In other words, a community office to minister to those needs. On page 4 of this document we find that "it is necessary to fund loyal and valid agencies within our community in order to satisfy the needs of', and it goes on to talk about the needs of seniors, women, youth, small business and so on. It is very important to see that one of the recommendations of a group of Italian Canadians in the Liberal Party was to set up a storefront office to minister to the needs of the community. There is nothing the matter with that. The Italian Liberals are quite entitled, as are Italians of Conservative persuasion or Italians of New Democratic Party persuasion, to form their own group. But look who is on the list. Mr. Giacomo Capitanio. Here he is listed as the vice-president of the York West F'ederal Liberal Association. Miss Albina Guarnieri is listed as a director of CAFIIC. I assume, though I am not completely sure that that is her directorship in the Canadian Alliance for Integration and Culture. Also listed is Mr. Joe Volpe. Mr. Volpe is listed as a candidate in the Downsview provincial riding. Other people are listed who are aldermen candidates, former legislative assistants, and one MPP, Mr. Michael Spen-cieri. These people are entitled to make recommendations to the Liberal Party.
My third document is a proposal for a job-creation program in the social services field to meet the needs of the community
Supply
in northwest Toronto. Who is this submitted by? It is submitted by the Canadian Alliance for Integration and Culture. They seem to have dropped the word Italian, but they do cite the non-profit registration number as No. 540,758, which is the same number in the incorporation document for the Canadian Alliance for Italian Integration and Culture. Indeed, basically they are the same people. The chairman, who is submitting this, is Mr. Joe Volpe, again a director of the original Alliance who appears on the Liberal Party documents and who wants a storefront office. What does this group want? They want funding for a storefront office to help the Italian community. Their first objective is:
1.	To open a store-front "office meeting place," conveniently located in "Eglinton-Lawrence" and open to all who require assistance in accessing services.
But convenient to whom, Mr. Speaker? Convenient to the Liberal Party in Metropolitan Toronto. Convenient to a group in the Italian community. Convenient to a group controlled by certain people in the Italian community which I said in the House the other day is a threat to some of the Members of Parliament here. In fact, what is being set up is a group who will work ultimately to get control and knock off Liberal Members in Etobicoke-Lakeshore, in York West and perhaps in other ridings, including the Minister sitting over there and his colleague from Trinity.
1 will come back to that in a moment. This is a job-creation proposal submitted. Let me come to the normal procedure of the job-creation program. This is what the last Member was talking about. Members of Parliament know about this.
What is the normal procedure for a job-creation program? Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker. The normal procedure, which 1 have confirmed this morning by checking with the department in metropolitan Toronto, is first that a project officer gets regulations from the Government and advertises what the regulations are. The project officer goes out into the community and solicits applications. The applications then come in. They are looked at by the office. Consultants look at them. A minimum, I am told, of three consultants sometimes are 10, see if the application is serious and if the project is valuable for the community. The next stage is that the project officer makes a recommendation to the regional office. Then it goes to the Minister for approval.
For some programs-the Canada Works program and the Summer Canada program, Members of Parliament get involved. I have been involved. I have got grants for my riding. I have been to see the process and I have taken part in the process in Vancouver. The Member of Parliament comes in to approve the grants on the level just before the recommendation goes to the regional office.
What happens then with this new program, the program that the Hon. Member from Calgary, who last spoke, referred to? He talked about the Special Employments Initiatives Program in which $300 million was available. He called it a slush fund for Liberal members. He pointed out that confidentiality is required. It is more than that. I will tell you how the grant works, Mr. Speaker. I have checked this out with civil
1366

February 14, 1984
Supply
servants who work in the area. In this program an application comes in. I asked civil servants from where the application comes. They tell me they do not know. No one goes out to the community. I asked how they get the application. I was told that it just comes in to the office. They do an assessment and go through the recommendation phase. They do not do an assessment the way the other programs are assessed. There is one person for these programs for one-half of the constituencies of Metropolitan Toronto. They have 11 people to assess the other programs. The assessment is perfunctory. In fact, it is just sent on to the Minister. From where does the application really come? We know that it comes from the Member of Parliament. In the riding of Eglinton-Lawrence, the present Member sitting in the House makes a recommendation. How convenient.
You see the picture, Mr. Speaker. You have a group of Italian Canadian Liberals forming a society who meet and say they need a storefront office. They put it down on paper. The same group asks for a grant. Then we have the local MP giving them a grant of $583,000. To do what? There is the nub of the situation.
I have here a letter from the United Way addressed to the Hon. John Roberts. It is dated January 17, 1984 and says that there was no consultation with the community about this "large expenditure of federal dollars". There was little or no consultation with any of the Departments involved.
There is a group called COSTI-IIAS Immigrant Services which has been working 30 years in the Italian community. I believe-I may be wrong-that the present Minister of the Environment (Mr. Caccia) who is sitting in the House at one point in his career was a director of this group. It has a professional board of directors from all across the community. It has a good reputation. It is providing the same social services as that Liberal group is providing. It issued a press release in which it said that this was a duplication of social services. In other words, $583,000 has been spent to duplicate social services. The Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto on January 17 wrote to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray): "Re: Alliance for Italian Integration and Culture". It expressed its objection to the lack of consultation and wrote:
It is a slap in the face to the social planning organization as well as many other direct service agencies to have this action occur at such a fragile moment in the life of the non-government sector.
I asked the Minister a question about this in the House yesterday. He is quoted in The Toronto Star of February 14, in a column by Joe O'Donnell, as saying:
In approving a project or signing it, it was certainly not done on the basis of any connections that the sponsors might or might not have had with any political party.
My question to you, Mr. Speaker, to the people of Canada and to the Liberal Party is: Why was the grant approved? It flies in the face of existing agencies. It is against the present plan for social planning in Toronto. It politicizes the agency. Why was it approved? Here is a concrete example. Who found
out about this? Opposition MPs did not know about these grants. Even the Public Service did not know; it just mysteriously got the applications when they came in. This goes beyond politics. This is corruption; this is a direct example of corruption. The people of Canada should know that this is how their money is being spent.
As the United Way pointed out, it has $248,000 for new programs in Metropolitan Toronto each year and it gets 71 applications from organizations. Here, out of the blue, is $583,000 being given to an organization which has no professional expertise in it. I say to the Minister of the Environment, shame! How can you be part of the Metropolitan Toronto caucus? I ask the other Minister across the way, the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren), how he can be a part of this. These are two honourable Ministers. How can they take part in this? I do not believe that these two hon. gentlemen are that corrupt.
I have written a letter today to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and I want to read it. It reads:
Dear Mr. Roberts,
I am writing to you concerning the $583,000 grant to the Alliance Community Services in the constituency of Eglinton-Lawrence in Toronto.
May I just pause to give the unemployment rate in Eglinton-Lawrence. I think it is about 4.4 per cent. In any event, the letter continues:
I am enclosing documentation including:
1.	my question to you yesterday in the House of Commons;
2.	the Letter Patent of the Canadian Alliance for Italian Integration and Culture;
3.	a "Discussion Paper on Integration and the Italian Community's Relations with the Liberal Party";
4.	proposal for a job creation program in the social services field etc., submitted by the Canadian Alliance;
5.	the Alliance's pamphlet from their storefront office;
6.	letters from the United Way of Greater Toronto and from the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto objecting to the grant; and
7.	a statement by COSTI-IIAS Immigrant Services (an organization doing this work professionally for 30 years) objecting to the duplication of services.
I think you will see the clear Liberal connection with this project. As the so-called 'political Minister for Toronto' you would be incompetent if you did not know about this.
As the Minister of Employment for Canada you have approved a grant that- in fact of opposition from the existing organization in Metro's Italian Community-paves the way for former and potential Liberal candidates to organize door-to-door using public money to boot.
Civil service assessment of these grants is perfunctory at best. Existing services are duplicated. Compared to COSTI, the Alliance has an inexperienced Board of Directors.
You have politicized social work in Toronto, which will have long term ramifications.
In short, this grant smells.
I suggest you show some leadership here, reassess the situation and terminate the grant.
In conclusion, I would like to add a couple of further matters so that Canadians will understand why am I objecting to former present and future Liberal candidates going door to door in an organization which is paid for by public funds. The reason is the nature of modern politics. This organization has
February 14, 1984

the ability to identify all potential voters in that community and to sign them up for the Liberal Party, for elections or for takeover bids. Say they wanted to knock off the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Fleming) at a nomination meeting. This is the way it goes. They could put it into their new personal computers and keep lists of people's names and so on. There is nothing the matter with that; we do that in all Parties now. But what is the matter with this and why this is corrupt is that it is paid for by the Government of Canada under job creation.
I have just returned from Edmonton. There is 14 per cent unemployment there. I talked with some young people who are unemployed. They are disillusioned and distressed about what is happening. If I had told them about this grant, can we imagine what they would feel about the rottenness of this kind of approach to government and to job creation?
Not only does the present Minister of Employment and Immigration have no chance of running for the leadership of the Liberal Party, as I have heard talked about, but he should consider resigning from the House of Commons because this is an example of corruption.
I close by seeking the unanimous consent of the House-and 1 do not expect to obtain it because I think the Liberal Party will try to bury this stinking fish-to file for all Hon. Members to see or to table in the House the letters patent of the Canadian Alliance for Italian Integration and Culture; a discussion paper on the integration and the Italian community's relations with the Liberal Party; a proposal for a job-creation program in the social services field to meet the needs of the community in northwest Toronto; and finally the pamphlet-they are now set up-from the Alliance Community Services, sponsored by CAFIIC, Mr. J. Volpe, chairman, and funded by Employment and Immigration Canada, Employment Development Branch. I seek unanimous consent to table these four documents.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair should inform Hon. Members at this time that only Ministers are allowed under our procedure to table documents.


James Aloysius McGrath: It could be done by unanimous consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) says, that could be done by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member to table certain documents?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. On debate, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Do we not have a question period following these discussions, these scurrilous presentations?
Supply


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair apologizes. It should have allowed for the question and comment period. I thank the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary for reminding the Chair of its duties. We will now proceed with it.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I am the chairman of an informal group known as the Toronto area Liberal parliamentary caucus, so I took some interest in the instructions the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) gave us about the way in which we should conduct our affairs. I wonder whether he could give some evidence that the people involved in this agency have been improperly using Government funding? By that I mean, conducting political activities when they are being paid by the Government during the Government's time, using the storefront for political activities, using the list for political activities, or using any of the equipment and facilities in this agency for political activities.
The Hon. Member has raised a serious charge. He has named names. He has left those people with no defence because he has raised the charge in the House of Commons. I ask him to go beyond the guilt by association that he is using and to provide some evidence that these people are acting improperly and being financed by Government money.


Gérald Laniel: That is an NDP tactic.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says that my presentation was scurrilous.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: It was.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I take offence at that. I tried to lay it out by documents which I proposed to table in the House, but the Liberal Party would not allow me to because they would not give unanimous consent. I set it out in detail. With reference to conducting political activity, the Hon. Member knows that that is a thing that is almost impossible to prove; you have to shape up a picture and the picture tells the story.
The evidence here, it seems to me, leads to only one possible conclusion and one possible opportunity. The point that I was making was that it was an opportunity to use this organization for the very purposes that were set out by the Liberal Party document, saying that they wanted a storefront office to get into the community for Party purposes.
Basically the same people then go to the Government and get a grant that has a strange way of being approved, different from all the other grants we have ever seen in job creation, and suddenly they are set up in their storefront office. I say that leads to the overwhelming conclusion that indeed they got their office for precisely the purposes that they set out in their job-creation program.
I tried to check this more specifically. The Hon. Member says I put some of these people in jeopardy. I tried to phone some of those people. I had difficulty getting them. I phoned Albina Maria Guarnieri. I phoned Lowther Consultants in Toronto; the number was out of service. They put me on to the

February 14, 1984
Supply
other number. It was Jim Coutts' office. I phoned Jim Coutts' office and asked for Mrs. Guarnieri. When I asked to talk to her, 1 was told she was in a meeting. I phoned a couple of times but she was always in meetings. Therefore, I made some attempts to talk to these people.
I talked also to civil servants. I asked a question of the Minister yesterday on this matter. It seems to me that I have taken all reasonable steps to show a case. When you put all the evidence together in the face of community support, in face of the connections and in the face of what they were trying to do, it shows that they are now set up to do precisely what they wanted to do as set out in their paper.
I have to tell the Hon. Member that you have to look at the way modern politics operate. When you have all that information, you can use it, and that is precisely what the Liberal Party wants to do. The Hon. Member can disagree with that. I say to the Hon. Member, show me the civil servant's recommendation in detail. Show me the monitoring report. Show me the cost of approving this service. There are two criticisms of the grant. One, it is overlapping, duplicitous and does not make any sense. The second implication beyond all reasonable doubt, it seems to me, is that the evidence leads to it being a political set-up.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member digs himself further in all the time. He says that he tried to talk to people but he admits he has not. He says he does not have any direct contact with any of the principals. He admits that he does not have any concrete evidence, yet he is willing to stand in the House and say two or three things. He is going to give people's names, he is going to say they are engaged in corrupt activity and he is going to say that it is a massive conspiracy, not only on the part of these people but on the part of Members over here.
Let us see if the Member wants to step outside the House and accuse the individuals whose names he has mentioned. Does he have the courage to go outside where he does not have the protection of our rules and blame these people so they can answer him where this belongs, in a court of law? He knows full well that he does not have enough evidence for that. He has a lot of cockamanie theory. Yes, indeed, there is some controversy. COSTI-IIAS raised these concerns. Let us answer that on that level. To go one step further and to take people who are involved in legitimate social work and legitimate political activity and to say that that is wrong or corrupt is great-that's a really good theory! That is what Joseph McCarthy did in the 1950s. If the Hon. Member does not want his name associated with McCarthyism, then step outside and accuse people so that they can answer.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I seek the co-operation of Hon. Members to make questions and comments as brief as possible.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I will reply briefly. I ask Hon. Members to look at the letters patent and try and find if there is one social worker on it. These are rank amateurs. I said it was the Government that was corrupt, not these people.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Are you willing to go outside?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It was the Minister who did this. It was the Minister who was incompetent through his political job in Toronto and it was the Government that was corrupt in the way that it was giving out these grants.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: No, sir, you made specific charges. Go outside.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I said it was the Government that was corrupt.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, in his comments, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) mentioned that he found nothing to criticize in the way the former Local Initiatives Program, now called Canada Works, was implemented because the system made it possible for him, as an Opposition Member, to have the same say as a Government Member in the final choice of projects.
Personally, I do not have a specific axe to grind, but does the Hon. Member mean he would have no objection to the program if he had been able to do his job in his own riding and make recommendations for suitable projects there?
He is accusing the Government or Government Members of exercising patronage or encouraging more or less worthwhile organizations. I may remind the Hon. Member that a few years ago when we set up the Local Initiatives Program, I know of one instance in Vancouver, maybe in his own riding, where a project had been approved at the recommendation of a Member of Parliament, probably from his own party, for setting up a small farm, where subsequently marijuana was grown. So all Members are not necessarily to blame for choices that turn out to have unfortunate consequences. I think the Hon. Member will have to admit that according to his reasoning, if he had been able to make his own recommendations in his own riding, exercising his own NDP patronage, he would have had no objection to the Program.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the whole point is that these other programs are fine. I am a supporter of the other programs. I went to the office of the Canada Works woman who was going out and finding the projects in my riding. That was fine; no one objects to that. The problem with this program, I tell the Hon. Member, is that it was a selective program. Only Liberal members were informed of this program. They were told to go out and get the grants and submit them correctly. It has the wrong kind of process. It ends up with grants like this, which are opposed by the existing community, some of the older services which have been in service for 30 years, the present existing services. It leads to charges of political interference. Indeed, in this particular program I submit there was a political thing happening. It opens up the Government. With
February 14, 1984

a grant like that in the British system, I have no doubt but that the Minister would have to resign; but not in our system.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the grants or to the legitimate process using civil servants and having the MPs' input where it should be. However, this was a special program and we were not informed about it properly. It was secret and it was the Liberal MPs who benefited. I think it is going to rebound on them. It is going to hurt the programs and the Government.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 have approximately ten minutes before two o'clock to introduce this topic. I would like to conclude after Question Period.
At the outset I would like to say that I enter this debate more in sorrow than in any sense of anger. There is an underlying current of anger that does exist across the country. Since this issue has arisen of job creation and the political manipulation in which the Government has been involved, particularly the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and Members of the Cabinet, I have had the opportunity of travelling back to my constituency and across a good part of the country. Having been involved in a small way with respect to raising some of these issues on the floor of the House of Commons, I can tell Hon. Members that I have been absolutely astounded at the sense of indignation that has been expressed to me as a Member of Parliament in coffee shops, airports, airplanes and in my riding with respect to the callous, cynical and manipulative tactics that are being adopted by the Government with respect to so-called fast-track capital projects and job-creation projects. To put it in the most complimentary way that I can, they have been put together in a slap-dash, haphazard and political way.
The New Democratic Party has been preoccupied for some months now with an attack on our Party in particular. It has spent its energy and time in an attack on my Leader and the policies of my Party.


An Hon. Member:: What policies?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I must compliment the members of the New Democratic Party today. I am prepared to compliment them once in a while when there is a germ of perception. Finally, after many months, they have tried to train their guns on the Liberal Government of the country. I compliment them for bringing forward this resolution. Although we have some difficulty with it, we will in fact support the proposition being put forth because there are elements in here which are compelling. Unfortunately, rather than being able to spend our time debating in the best way possible in order to create jobs, there has been an element in terms of the Government's activity on job creation that has given a nasty turn to this debate. That is with respect to the manipulation, patronage and porkbarrel slush fund that is being operated to the detriment of peole who want to work but are unable to obtain employment.
Supply
I understand that the New Democratic Party has a philosophical problem with respect to the patronage issue. They are very much in favour of government intervention. As the Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has said, they would do exactly the same as the Government. They would hand out dollars where they, in their own wisdom, think these dollars would do the most good. They do not specify whether it is the most good politically or with respect to employment. One of the difficulties in terms of the policies of the Liberal and New Democratic Parties is that the funds are not allocated on an equitable and fair basis and directed toward the people they are intended to help, the unemployed of our country. My colleague from St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) brought forward policies and positions that we as a Progressive Conservative Government would take with respect to directing the assistance to areas where there is more possibility for job creation, such as the small business sector. Canadians understand that.
1 would like to address myself to the element of the motion with which I am particularly concerned and with which literally thousands of Canadians have expressed concern. That is with respect to the last part of the New Democratic Party's motion that the allocation of job-creation funds has been done in a partisan fashion and not based upon local employment levels.
One of the things I have noticed with respect to this debate is a very simple fact of life. The Liberal Government is so terribly sensitive about allowing any of its back-benchers to get up to address this issue so that we can question them that it has prohibited members of its Party from standing in their place and participating in this debate. The Government has had one Minister involved in the course of this two-hour debate. Not one back-bencher has the courage of his convictions to stand up and participate in this debate and be subject to criticism and questioning on the part of the Opposition. That is an indication of precisely what is wrong with our job-creation programs and our Government today.
In the partisan and political forum of the House of Commons I am not going to rely on quoting my colleagues with respect to what has happened in the Liberal Party. I am going to go directly to the fount. I am going to refer to the executive of the Liberal Party of Canada. It had a commission established under the president, Iona Campagnolo. The commission's mandate was to examine some of the problems the Liberal Party has been experiencing in the country and its lack of support across the country. That commission was established under Gordon Gibson, a British Columbia Liberal. It was established as a result of resolutions passed at the 1982 Liberal convention.
I do not know if the name Alfred Apps strikes a responsive chord. Alfred Apps is the president of the Young Liberal Association. He is the man who brought forward a resolution at the national Liberal convention which, in effect, slammed the Liberal Party. This resolution was given overwhelming support by the rank and file of the Liberal Party. The resolution condemned powerful backroom, non-accountable, non-

February 14, 1984
legitimate, non-elected members of the Liberal Party for manipulative electoral sham and for the polls, propaganda and patronage orchestrated by a small elite. According to journalist Terrance Wills of the Gazette, this attack was aimed at the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), Senator Keith Davey, his guru of strategy, Jim Coutts, the Prime Minister's principal secretary and others with informal roles in advising the Government, which totally bypassed the democratically accountable executive of the Party.
This commission came down with some very interesting conclusions and suggestions. Among other things it said:
Some believe the price the party has paid for being so long in power has been the loss of its idealism.
It also said:
Answers have not yet been found to our serious weakness in western Canada.
1 am going to deal with that. The commission went on to say:
The national party is out of touch with Parliamentary caucus. Given the quality of advice from the national party, an MR has to be a saint, or an aspiring leadership candidate to pay much attention to the national party.
These are not the words of political opponents of the Liberal Government of the country. These are the words of a commission established by the president of the Liberal Party. These are words of resolutions passed overwhelmingly by the rank and file of the Liberal Party. People across this country, including Liberals, have had it up to their teeth with the attitude with respect to job creation and the operation of the public affairs of our country. This attitude has reduced the significance of Parliament and the parliamentary caucus to a group of mere yesmen, and centered all the activity in the Prime Minister's Office on the non-elected, non-accountable officials whom I have mentioned. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what is at the bottom of the problem at a time when we face unprecedented unemployment of 11.2 per cent in our country.


Mr. Speaker:: It being two o'clock p.m. the House will now proceed to statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 21.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Michael Perley of the Canadian Coalition on Acid Rain has mentioned in discussions that Michael Walsh, who was with the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States under the Carter administration, was instrumental in having stricter automobile emission legislation put through.
Though there have been announcements in this respect, I wonder whether the Minister of the Environment or the Minister of Transport are planning an announcement that there will be no change in the automobile emission standards in Canada until the 1990 models come out.
Considering that the cars assembled here in Canada are shipped to the U.S. with emission reduction gear, why is the Government reluctant to do the same here, and why not the 1986 model year? I wonder whether the Ministers responsible have had any consultations with the automobile manufacturers on the basis that leaded gasoline will be reduced and that this will suffice.



OLYMPIC GAMES


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, as you probably know, this morning Gaetan Boucher won a gold medal for Canada for speed skating, his second medal in two
days.
Mr. Speaker, I am aware that Standing Order 21 does not provide for extending congratulations, and it is not my intention to go against the Standing Order.
Nevertheless, I would like to point out that the gold and silver medals were won despite the fact that Canada offers this sport only marginal support. In fact, the Canadian speed skating team has to go abroad to train on artificial ice, since there are no facilities in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to bring the following to the attention of Canadians and this House. As you know, the next Olympic Games will be held in Calgary, here in Canada, and western Canada will therefore have the facilities required to train speed skaters on an artificial rink. I think it is high time eastern Canada was provided with a speed skating rink, considering the fact that Canada's speed skating team at the Olympic Games in Sarajevo consists of seven skaters, all from the Province of Quebec.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that Gaetan Boucher and all the athletes representing us at the Games in Sarajevo are an inspiration for young Canadians who also hope one day to make their country proud of their achievements.



VIA RAIL


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, since I had so little time in committee last week, and since the
February 14, 1984

situation is so serious, I intend, over the next few days or weeks, to set out by way of statements under this Standing Order some of my concerns over the operation of VIA Rail.
Despite advertisements to the contrary, there is no longer any fun in travelling by train in Canada. Of some 36 trains I checked on Boxing Day, not one was on time. Granted, 10 of them averaged only 30 minutes late, but the balance of them ranged from one and a half hours late to four and a half hours late, and one did not leave at all. It was replaced by buses.
Four trains were fully loaded long before they reached their destinations, and the treatment accorded passengers was less than satisfactory. Hundreds were turned away.
Another holiday period, January 2 this year, was almost as bad. Although one train was actually on time, the balance ranged as late as three hours.
I realize this was a holiday period, but in the past there was always an effort to serve. That effort no longer exists. VIA Rail and its management are not serving Canadians as they should.



BILINGUALISM


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday 1 read in Friday's Quorum an article that appeared in The Gazette on February 10, 1984. The title was in English, and I quote:

Two MPs start legal fund to fight French rights Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to quote from the Canadian Press text I have here in French, which reads as follows:
A Progressive Conservative Member for Manitoba declared Thursday that the Manitoba Bill on French rights which received the support of federal Progressive Conservatives was a socialist attempt to irreversibly destroy the provincial fabric of peace and harmony.
The Member in question was, of course, the Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie).
Mr. Speaker, I wish to protest against the attitude taken by two Progressive Conservative Members after the House adopted a resolution on this matter. The other Member mentioned in the article in The Gazette is the Member for Simcoe-South (Mr. Stewart) who is here in the House this afternoon, and speaking of French rights, I remember that during the debate on the Constitution, the Member for Simcoe-South said that the only official language we should have in this country was English. When I see these two Members completely ignoring Canadian realities and the status of Francophones in this country, I find this so shameful, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot do
otherwise but rise and ask the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party to expel these two Members, and so when the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party tells us that his Party has paid its debt to Francophones in Manitoba since the Riel affair, I find this situation absolutely shameful, Mr. Speaker, and I find it outrageous that the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party says in Quebec that he wants to defend the rights of Francophones, when two of his own Party Members are not even capable of following his lead on French rights in Manitoba and this is going to lead to a blood feud between Manitobans, especially against Francophones.
Mr. Speaker, I think that is shameful, and 1 would ask the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party to take disciplinary measures against those two Members.



NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, I am appalled at the contempt the Government has shown for Parliament and for the courts in its haste to begin Cruise missile testing in Canada.
The Supreme Court of Canada today is hearing the challenge to the Cruise missile testing decision under Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But even before the Court had an opportunity to hear the case, the Minister of National Defence told the press that the Cruise missile tests would begin in the next few weeks even if the Supreme Court had not finished dealing with the legal challenge.
That is not the first time the Government has shown its arrogance and contempt on this issue. In December, 1981, the Cabinet agreed in principle to allow Cruise missiles to be tested here. But even after these plans became public knowledge, the Government refused to launch a debate on the issue. On a number of occasions it refused the requests from Members of this House for a free vote. Then, Mr. Speaker, even though the Government had not exempted the Cruise testing from a legal challenge under the Charter of Rights, when the legal challenge was launched the Government tried to have it thrown out of court by arguing that the courts had no right to deal with Cabinet decisions on matters of defence and national security.
All we can say, Mr. Speaker, is that the Members opposite should hang their heads in shame for the contempt the Government has shown for Parliament and the courts in this matter.

February 14, 1984



BILINGUALISM


Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This morning, the newspaper La Presse showed quite clearly, I believe, that the Leader of the Opposition was over-optimistic in supporting the French fact in Manitoba. Last fall, he declared he had paid off the Progressive Conservative century-old debt to bilingualism. He has done nothing at all except confuse the issue even more, in an incredible situation where we have a spineless Leader and Members who thumb their noses at his gesture, stating that his token support for bilingualism is a pious wish and nothing more.
But where is the Leader of the Opposition who stated in an article in the newspaper Le Droit on June 13 of last year that he was the one who would determine the Party's main policy and that he would not tolerate any dissent? The House will recall that Robert Stanfield, a former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, refused to ratify the nomination of Leonard Jones, ex-mayor of Moncton, as a candidate in the general election because of the position he took against bilingualism.
Where is the Leader of the Opposition when the Members for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) and Simcoe-South (Mr. Stewart) contradict his views on bilingualism? Could he today at least try to follow Mr. Stanfield's example and immediately order these two dissidents to leave the Party or to resign their seat, on such a fundamental issue? Francophones throughout Canada are waiting for the Progressive Conservative Leader to take action.



THE PAPACY


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, Simcoe North and the Midland-Penetanguishene area in particular are extremely pleased and honoured that His Holiness Pope John Paul II will be visiting the Martyrs Shrine and Sainte-Marie among the Hurons during his visit to Canada. Six of North America's eight martyred saints were missionaries at Sainte-Marie. The Martyrs Shrine is of significant religious and historical importance because it is dedicated to those first canonized saints.
Under the capable direction of Father James Farrell a large, dedicated group of local volunteers is working very hard to ensure that the Pope's visit to the area is a success. They are faced with the difficult task of preparing for the attendance in the area of hundreds of thousands of people who want to see the Pope. It is therefore obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the Pope's visit to the Midland-Penetanguishene area carries its own significance and importance separate from his visit to Toronto.
Today I was quite distressed to note that some of the national media are treating the Pope's visit to Midland as merely a small part of his Toronto visit. On behalf of the residents of Simcoe North, and especially the thousands of people who will work many hours to make the Midland trip a success, I encourage the media to treat this visit as an entity separate from the Toronto visit.



FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, it was a privilege for me recently to attend the Davos, Switzerland, Conference on World Economic Recovery and Security. Many issues were discussed. It became obvious that all nations were seeking international capital investment, both the equity and debt type, and were removing deterrents to such investments.
In Canada FIRA was, and is, a deterrent to foreign capital investment. Although it has been significantly restructured, it still remains as a massive psychological deterrent to foreign capital investment in Canada. The Agency should have its name changed, and it should be directing all of its efforts to encouraging foreign investment in selected key sectors of the Canadian economy. It should be made an asset rather than a liability to economic recovery in Canada. It was established in 1973, and has accomplished its task reducing foreign control of the private sector from 33 per cent to 26 per cent in 10 years. Today it is approving 95 per cent of the applications before it, and rejecting only 5 per cent, but psychologically it is still a major deterrent and nuisance. Let us get rid of it, or change its function and its name. Canada needs foreign investment-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.



OLYMPIC GAMES


Mr. Raymond Dupont (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement under the provisions of Standing Order 21 and call the attention of the Members of this House to an important event which has just occurred at the Olympic Games in Sarajevo.
Mr. Gaetan Boucher, who represents Canada in the sport speedskating competitions, has won a first gold medal in the 1,000 metre race. He also won a bronze medal a few days ago in the 500-metre event.
This honour which is reflected on all of us is very typical of Gaetan Boucher, who is the first Canadian to win a gold medal
February 14, 1984

in this form of sport. Needless to say, as Canadians we are all very proud of Gaetan Boucher's performance especially the people of Saint-Hubert where he resides. Quite recently, just a few months ago, the Gaetan Boucher Arena was built in Saint-Hubert to underline the sportsmanship of this athlete and the great things he is doing for amateur sports.
I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am personally very happy about this young athlete's achievement and 1 would like to take this opportunity to congratulate him.



TOURISM


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, on February 3 a Canadian, now residing in Florida, had his letter to The Toronto Star published. It, in great detail, described one of the key reasons the tourism industry in Canada continues to struggle. Due to government taxation, a gallon of gasoline sells for $2.30 in Windsor, Ontario, and just across the border it sells for $1.40 Canadian. This is a 65 per cent difference. Motel accommodation in Canada is almost double the cost just across the border. Alcoholic beverages in the United States are allowed to be sold competitively and are not taxed at an 80 per cent level, as they are here. Anyone who has ever been across the border also knows that restaurant meals and groceries sell for about half of what they do in Canada.
It is of vital importance that the Government realize that advertising campaigns and promotions, and even a bonus on the U.S. dollar, cannot undo the damage done by the Government's taxation policies. They are driving away both U.S. and Canadian tourists and ruining the tourism industry in Canada.
* *
*



VIA RAIL


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, recently the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) recognized that an important link in the Via Rail network across Canada was that between Winnipeg and Edmonton, and announced the reopening of that particular portion. What is yet to be reopened, of course, is the link between Edmonton, Jasper, the North Thompson Valley, and the City of Vancouver, linking together one of the most important scenic potentials in western Canada. Unquestionably, Mr. Speaker, this has great tourist potential. It provides the ability to travel through one of the most spectacular parts of the world when it comes to natural beauty and pristine natural environments.
Considering Expo 86 is in the offing, and that 12 to 18 months of pre-planning are required in order to organize overseas tour packages, on behalf of the New Democratic Party I would urge the Minister of Transport to reopen the
Oral Questions
part of the Via western network linking the City of Edmonton with the City of Vancouver in order to allow the proper development, not only of the tourist potential of the western cordillera, but also to provide much needed services for the North Thompson Valley by the Via Rail system.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the fast tracking Minister of Employment and Immigration who, I suspect, was suffering from a little jet lag yesterday, which is the only way to explain some of the incredible statements he made in this House. Given the fact that on January 21, 1983, in reply to a question by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Rosedale, the then Minister of Economic Development indicated that 400 projects had been approved under the Special Employment Initiatives Program, and given the fact that in November of last year, in the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, we were told that 844 programs had been approved under this Special Employment Initiatives Program for a cost of $138 million, can the Minister tell the House why he is not able to make that list available to the House? Could it be that it has been laundered in the back rooms of the Prime Minister's Office?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the second part of the Hon. Member's question is no. The answer to the first part of his question is that the request was put to us in terms of a list on a constituency by constituency basis. That was not the basis on which projects were approved and it, therefore, takes a considerable amount of time to compile. As I told the Hon. Members in the House yesterday, I will endeavour to have that list before the House as quickly as possible-I expect by next Monday, perhaps a little earlier, if I am able.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister make available to the House the unexpurgated list which was referred to last November? We will figure out the constituencies.


REGIONAL MINISTERIAL INPUT
James Aloysius McGrath: I would like to ask the Minister, Mr. Speaker, why is it that this program only has input from regional Ministers, whereas the other four streams have input not only from Ministers and Members of Parliament, but from the public? Can the Minister tell us what

February 14, 1984
Oral Questions
the difference is between the Special Employment Initiatives Program, which is supposed to be fast tracking, which has no public input, which has only input from regional Ministers, and the other four streams of his employment initiatives?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, there are several questions posed. The answer to the first one is that the list will not be an expurgated list. The list will not only be the one he asked for but one which is brought up as close to date as possible.
The answer to the second part of the Hon. Member's question is that the projects are suggested not only by regional Ministers, but are suggested by Departments, by Members of Parliament, by municipalities, and by a variety of agencies. No one is precluded from making suggestions as to projects which should be funded.


LISTING OF PROJECTS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, it is important that the Minister come clean with this House because his credibility is at stake. The whole concept of accountability is at stake here. We are talking about S300 million of public money which this Government has not accounted for to this House. I ask the Minister, whose credibility is on the line-he has already told us that $288 million of this $300 million has been spent-he has told us that there have been 844 projects approved-why is it that he will not release to this House, and to the public of Canada, the projects which have been approved. What is he trying to hide?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to hide anything. As I indicated to the House yesterday, I am going to provide the list of projects-


An Hon. Member:: When?


John (Moody) Roberts: If the Hon. Member who asks when had been in the House yesterday he would have remembered that I said 1 would try to provide it by Monday next, and perhaps even earlier than that, if I am able to do so. I remind the hon. gentleman who has posed the question that it is not only my credibility at stake. He reminds me a little of Queen Marie of Austria of whom it was said, "She cried and cried, and took and took." On one hand, the Hon. Member is now decrying this program to me in the House. On the other hand, he sent me a letter yesterday asking me to fund projects in his riding under that program.


GRANT TO COVENANT HOUSE, IN TORONTO
David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As the Minister may know, on December 8, 1983, the Liberal Member for York South-Weston announced in a press release that there was a grant of $230,000 to go to Covenant House in downtown Toronto, in the riding of Rosedale. Apparently she
had, on behalf of the Minister, negotiated that grant during the months of October and November. At the same time I was negotiating with the Minister's own officials for 32 projects in my riding. I can assure the Minister that during all of that time neither I nor his officials-I checked this morning-knew of the fund the Minister is now talking about.
In short, behind my back, while I was negotiating for 32 projects in my own riding, the Liberal Member for York South-Weston, on behalf of the Minister, was able to negotiate a $230,000 grant. Does the Minister think that is an honest, fair process? Is that what he thinks this democracy is about?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is no. I had not remembered that announcement. I think that I probably would be glad it was made. Is the Hon. Member suggesting he would prefer not to have that project take place in his constituency? If the Hon. Member is suggesting that because he has projects which he wishes to pursue, and which he is properly discussing with civil servants, then every other Member of Parliament is precluded from talking about projects which will take place in Toronto, then I think he is demanding for himself a role of veto inappropriate to his position as a Member of Parliament.


ROLE OF OFFICIALS
David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister wants to call his own officials in Toronto, as I did this morning, he will find out it was not only me and other Members of this House but his own officials in Toronto, all three of them, who deal with all job creation projects, were unaware of the fund the Minister and his Liberal friends in caucus were able to get. In short, what the Minister has done is totally circumvent any public accountability or process. There were 32 projects which were very important in my riding, and the same applies to other ridings. You do not have to know-you should not have to know-a Minister of the Crown in order to get a job grant.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who posed the question is, I believe, a very serious and responsible Member of Parliament; therefore I take his allegation seriously. I would say that I would be very surprised if I found on verification the facts which he has given to the House are not that entirely accurate, but I will pay him the respect of trying to ensure whether his version is indeed entirely accurate.


SPECIAL RECOVERY CAPITAL PROJECTS PROGRAM-AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Projects. In his Budget last year the Minister of Finance indicated that the recovery program was going to be led by these projects. Yesterday he indicated the Government's priority was to fast track these projects to make sure they provide maximum benefits to Canadians. Can the Minister explain to the House, given the intent to fast track these projects, why a confidential report from his Department indicates that, of the $625 million set aside for those projects, only $396 million has been spent to date? Why has it taken so long to get these projects under way when so many Canadians are hard pressed?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the projects have in fact gone forward at an accelerated pace. Some 232 projects with a total cost of $1.96 billion, some 81 per cent of the total $2.4 billion program, will have been started by February 28 of this year. There have, of course, been variations from region to region and from project to project, but I would be glad to provide the Hon. Member opposite with full information about the current status of the projects.


USE OF UNEXPENDED FUNDS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, considering that only $396 million of the $625 million allocated for the fast tracking of Special Recovery Capital Projects has been spent, a little over half, would the Minister of Employment confirm to this House that this money not spent will not appear in tomorrow's Budget as new additional job creation funds?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member addresses his question to me, but the Special Recovery Capital Projects are under the direction of my colleague, the Minister of State for Economic Development. In so far as his reference to what may or may not be in the Budget tomorrow is concerned, he will simply have to wait and see what takes place tomorrow.


NUMBER OF JOBS CREATED
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the same Minister a very serious question. We are seeing a lot of money moving, so called, into the constituencies of Canada, it seems a great deal more into Liberal constituencies, but a lot of constituents are asking how much are we getting for this investment. How much are we getting for the $500,000 going into that Toronto riding? Has the Minister put into place something to ensure that the moneys spent on job creation are accountable? In other words, has there been some indication of the number of jobs created as a result of these investments?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is making an assumption, and I would like to try to clarify the first part of his question. The only programs based on a constituency alloca-
Oral Questions
tion are one component of the Canada Works Program and also a component of the Summer Canada Program. As I think we have tried to make clear repeatedly, the special employment funds on which Members have been commenting in the last few days are not allocated on a constituency by constituency basis.


Mr. Nielsen:: Grit by Grit.


John (Moody) Roberts: As to the evaluation of the programs, it is true that in a general way we do try to analyse what the job impacts are. That can be more or less easy or harder to do depending upon the spin-off effects and the nature of the projects.


BUDGET EXPENDITURE TARGET
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister, and has to do with the Special Recovery Capital Projects Program announced by the Minister of Finance in last year's Budget. In that budget statement the Minister said "earth will be moved, steel will be rigged, and concrete will be poured". It is reported today that the 121 projects were divided into 283 subprojects and work had begun on only 13 by September. Only $388 million is going to be spent this year out of $725 million allocated.
In view of these facts would the Minister tell the House how anyone can be expected to believe anything in a Budget any longer when the last Budget said $725 million would be spent and only $388 million is spent? It is not steel that is going to be rigged, it is the truth that is going to be rigged. Will the Minister explain how he rigged the truth, and what will be the truth tomorrow? Can we believe a word in that Budget tomorrow about employment related projects?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the last question is yes, the Member can believe what is in tomorrow's Budget. The answer to the first question I gave earlier. I cited the 232 projects with a total cost of approximately $1.96 billion which will have been started by February 28. The projects are under way, the concrete is being poured, the steel is being erected, and the capital projects are going forward in the way foreseen in the April Budget.


PREPARATION OF ESTIMATES
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary will not be to the Minister in charge of rigging; I will send it to the Minister of State for Finance. The official in charge of communications for this project, Robert Irvine, is quoted today as saying that federal spending projections were very rough at budget time last year. He goes on to say that $100 million was added to this fund as a result of the leaking of the Minister of Finance last year when he brought down the Budget. He says the Government has not yet figured how to spend that money.

February 14, 1984
Oral Questions
Will the Minister tell this House how we can believe one word in the Budget tomorrow? How can we believe the Government when it says it is going to spend more on employment projects? How can we not believe the money that was not spent this year is being recycled? Can the Minister tell the House how he and his Government have any credibility left at all? Their reputation for honesty and competence is completely gone.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the information is readily available to the Member opposite if he would take the trouble to inform himself. There is a document issued by the Special Recovery Capital Projects Board. It is a periodic status report up-date. The last one was issued on February 2. The Member opposite will find all the information that he requires in that document.
If that is not sufficient, the Special Recovery Capital Projects master list which is up-dated every so often, the last one being issued in November, sets forth in great detail the current status and the spending on each of the accelerated projects.


SPECIAL EMPLOYMENT INITIATIVES PROGRAM-PRODUCTION OF PROJECTS LIST
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I want to pursue the cover-up that the Minister of Employment and Immigration has been having with regard to the Special Employment Initiatives Program. I want to ask him why it was-


Mr. Dingwall:: Sit down.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: There are Liberal Members who are shouting "sit down".


David Charles Dingwall: You do not make sense.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The reason is that they do not want to hear what it is that is coming out of their program.
On November 24 last, in committee, the Minister's officials said that they were able to provide the list of projects by province and give it to members of the committee. It was confirmed by the chairman of the committee that that information would be available. Why were the officials able to provide that list the day after, and the Minister has muzzled them for three months since that time? Why has he held up that information?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, it really does seem bizarre for the Hon. Member to be accusing me of a cover-up. Last week in the House, as I have seen from reading Hansard, and if I remember correctly, she and her colleague, the Hon. Member for Rosedale, were asking for me to table the list and give them this information. That is exactly what I have agreed to do. I do not know how I can be accused of covering up when I have
decided to do exactly what it is that they have asked me to do in the House.
The information for which she has asked will be provided to her in as updated fashion as possible, and as clearly as possible. I gave my commitment to the House, which I take very seriously, that I will do that by early next week.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The procrastination of the Government in everything that it undertakes is evident in the way it has refused to produce this list. It has taken three months to do, or even to face up to something that could have been done in three days.


NOTIFICATION OF PROGRAM CRITERIA
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have one further question for the Minister concerning this program. On November 29 the Minister said to Members of the House in committee:
There is really only one thing 1 can say to you: When you receive the criteria, if you believe there are some useful projects in your area which would meet the criteria, you send me the suggestions and I will consider them.
"When we receive the criteria". Why did he hold the criteria up for three months?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I explained to Members in the House yesterday, and I say it with some regret since I wish the criteria had been provided more quickly to Hon. Members, that when I asked for the criteria to be prepared I did not feel that it was put forward in a fashion which would make it easy for Members opposite to understand what the criteria were. I emphasized in the committee that the criteria were supple, flexible, and wide-ranging. All of that was presented in the committee.
The revised exposition of the criteria was available for me when we returned from our Christmas break, and fairly soon after that it was presented to Members of the House. I regret the delay, and if one wants to accuse me of being fallible from that point of view, I accept that criticism. It was not with any intention of depriving Members of the Opposition, and certainly not muzzling my civil servants.
Indeed, since we have received some suggestions and proposals from Members opposite, I think there is some evidence that they do not feel they were deprived of an ability to make suggestions for projects to be funded under the scheme because they did not have as precise details as they would have wished.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Last week I revealed that in the Vancouver Regional Office of
February 14, 1984

Taxation Canada quotas have been in existence for some time, and senior staff in the Regional Office of Taxation in Vancouver literally attempted to cover up the evidence of such quotas by using typewriter white-out fluid on all internal memoranda which referred to these quotas.
In view of the fact that the Regional Director of Taxation has obviously misled the public in the Vancouver area with respect to the existence of quotas, and the circumstances of this cover-up, by using white-out typewriter fluid, will the Minister explain to the House the sequence of events in this incredible situation? Would he order an independent inquiry into the circumstances which led to this? In view of the actions of the Regional Director in misleading the public, will he suspend the Regional Director pending the outcome of that internal inquiry?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I was astonished at the comments the Hon. Member made to the press after that incident. I thought he was quite concerned and I maintain that he is probably one of the most concerned Members when it comes to individual rights. Yet I was surprised to hear him accuse, judge and condemn-as he has just done-the Director of the Vancouver Regional Office who, I believe, has offered an explanation concerning that situation.
I should like to remind the Hon. Member that the matter of quotas has been explained in the House on several occasions, particularly as it relates to auditing within the Department. I did indicate that instructions had been given to our auditors not to apply such quotas and that the policy had been implemented in regional offices. As to other forms of performance or production objectives for other staff in district offices, I said as well that those performance objectives had to be followed and indeed were being followed, while taking into consideration the nature of various duties and well-known management practices.


JOB DESCRIPTION REFERENCE TO WORK QUOTAS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, once again the Minister denies the existence of quotas and refers to performance objectives. How can the Minister explain the content of a confidential international memorandum which was in fact issued by his own Department's senior staff and is in effect right across Canada? It is a job description for a collections unit head, and states that one of the functions is to "establish work quotas for each function". How can the Minister continue to deny the existence of quotas when his own Department issues a job description which states that one of the functions of unit heads is to make sure that these very quotas are in fact met?
Oral Questions


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I would rather not get into an argument with the Hon. Member, but I wish he would keep in mind that it is not the policy of the Department to expect its senior auditors to fill quotas. The Hon. Member is referring to a document dealing with something which has nothing to do with auditing. I am talking about auditing which, by its very nature, leaves no room for such quotas, and the production or performance objectives must be set on the basis of other factors. As to the other sectors, the practices concerning the setting of performance objectives are so designed as to comply with the very nature of the operations carried out by the various sections.


EMPLOYMENT
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It relates to this corrupt perversion by the Government and the Cabinet of moneys that should be used for job creation in our country. I want to say to the Minister that it is a matter of morality in Government, and is being perceived as such by the people of Canada. Do not take my word for it; look at the resolution passed by the Liberal Party in full conference, which talked about the manipulative tactics of a small elite of the Liberal Cabinet in Government.
How can the Minister justify this slap-dash, haphazard kind of expenditure of an enormous amount of money with respect to these projects, when in fact a very substantial part of Canada has been ignored concerning the expenditure of moneys under the various programs? How can the Minister justify that in a free and democratic society?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. gentleman, first and most sincerely, that no one on this side of the House has to take lessons in morality from that Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: The second thing I would say to the Hon. Member is that if he were in the House and were listening, he would understand the explanation for the structure which we have established, which is to cut through red tape in bureaucracy and to try to create jobs as quickly as possible through this supplementary program. That is its purpose, and I believe that has been effective.

February 14, 1984
Oral Questions UNSPENT BALANCE OF FUNDS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, to get some idea of the enormity of the amount of money these fellows are giving away to their friends, I want to point out that the $300 million is equal to the Career Access Program to be used for employment opportunities for the young people of our country.
What money is the Minister now going to direct that has not now been spent? What amount does he now have that is available for the rest of the country and the rest of the Members of Parliament? Can the Minister be specific as to how much remains? What crumbs are there left for the rest of the people of Canada after he has dealt with his Liberal friends?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the funds that have been expended under this program have gone to a whole variety of groups, including municipalities, environmental organizations, church groups, and ethnic communities. I do not consider it an insult to have these people characterized as friends.


Erik Nielsen: Grits.


John (Moody) Roberts: If the hon. gentleman is inferring that somehow these are political affiliates in some partisan sense, then he is insulting a whole variety of important and credible communities all across this country. He will regret those words.
The second part of the question, if he has asked how much more funding is available-


Mr. Epp:: Are you suggesting an election?


An Hon. Member:: The Opposition does not want an answer.


John (Moody) Roberts: The answer to the second part of the Hon. Member's question about how much funding is still available under this program is that there is somewhere roughly around $90 million, I believe, that has yet to be allocated.


COVENANT HOUSE-NEGOTIATION OF GRANT
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Yellowhead):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the person who negotiated on behalf of the Government the grant to Covenant House. I would therefore like to ask the Member for York South-Wes-ton who authorized that Member to negotiate on behalf of the Government?


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect to the Right Hon. Member, a question can be directed to a Minister, a Parliamentary Secretary, or a chairman of a committee. Individual Members cannot answer. I regret to tell the Right Hon. Member that.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we, therefore, have a situation where an individual Liberal Member of Parliament can go out and negotiate on behalf of the Government but
cannot be held accountable in this House of Commons to answer as to the program.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: They destroy the system, and they applaud it. They are sick.


AUTHORIZATION FOR NEGOTIATION OF PROJECT
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration my question. Who authorized the Hon. Member for York South-Wes-ton-who gave her authority to negotiate a project in a constituency other than her own? Was it the Minister himself? Was it Senator Keith Davey? Was it an integral part of the Liberals' campaign for re-election? Do you need to know the Minister's private telephone number? Do you need to carry a card in the Liberal Party of Canada if you are going to be eligible for grants that are expenditures of public money designed to help all of the people of this country?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, it is really good to see the former Leader of the Opposition in such fine fettle and to see him so applauded by his backbenchers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: Many of them must wish he were back in his old place.
The question of the Right Hon. Member is really claptrap. To suggest that no Member of Parliament should discuss with any group what possibilities there are of receiving funding under an existing government program is extraordinary.


James Aloysius McGrath: In somebody else's riding?


John (Moody) Roberts: Of course Members of Parliament on this side and Members of Parliament on that side discuss, time in and time out, time immemorial, various possibilities that groups might have of taking advantage, quite properly, of government programs. The right hon. gentleman is concerned about not having sufficient access. I will send him my telephone number. I will be happy to talk to him anytime he wants.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what is at issue here is accountability, which is the core of this parliamentary system.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I have already had the Member for Niagara Falls, my twin, out in my constituency trying to
February 14, 1984

find clients for a program which the Member of Parliament for Yellowhead was not told about.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me come back-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead has the floor.


AUTHORIZATION OF ACTION
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It is the question I asked him before. Who authorized the Member for York South-Weston to negotiate on behalf of the Government of Canada the distribution of funds designed to bring credit to the Liberal Party in a constituency that was not her own? It is a simple question. Did the Minister authorize it? Did Senator Davey authorize it? Did Jim Coutts, who has had $1 million spent in his riding without, I would judge, agreement or consultation with the Member for Spadina-


Mr. Andre:: It is the porkbarrel. It gets so greasy it is slimey.


Charles Joseph Clark: Who authorized the Member to negotiate that spending?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, just because the right hon. gentleman is having difficulty bringing forward clients to take advantage of government programs is no reason to preclude any other Member of Parliament, including the Member for Niagara Falls, from trying to fill in that vacuum. The short answer to the right hon. gentleman is, as he should know-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Why are so many turned down?


John (Moody) Roberts: -that any Member of Parliament, indeed any citizen, can discuss with a variety of groups, any range of groups, how they might take advantage of government programs.
The negotiation, if you like, the signature of the contracts with the various groups that are concerned-a negotiation in that sense-is in the hands of my officials. There is no restraint on any Member of Parliament in talking about the possible advantages of programs and how they might be used. I invite members of the Opposition to do the same. It would be interesting to get some valuable projects suggested from them as to what we should do.


David Edward Crombie: Thirty-two projects, John.
Oral Questions HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS


BABY BOTTLE NIPPLES
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I refer to an article in the December 26 edition of The Toronto Star concerning a United States report of carcinoge-nous substances in baby bottle nipples.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ursula Appolloni: It is not funny, Mr. Speaker.
In view of recent United States regulations on nitrosamine levels in baby bottle nipples and pacifiers, does the Minister intend to take action in Canada with respect to these products?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, yes, as a precautionary measure I will be introducing regulations as soon as possible to spell out the maximum levels of nitrosamine levels in baby bottle nipples and pacifiers. It is a matter of some urgency. I would ask Members of this House to take this matter rather seriously. There is proof that it is a carcinogenic material as a result of tests with animals. The measures I am introducing include two levels of reductions. We will, for the period remaining of this year ask that these products contain 30 parts per billion of nitrosamines which will be reduced to 10 parts per billion by January 1, 1985.
I would hasten to reassure all parents in Canada that the products tested by my Department at this stage show that 75 per cent of them have levels of no detection or of lower than the 30 parts per billion. I want to reassure the parents of the country that most of the products they are using are indeed safe. We are releasing a list of the products which have been tested, and the levels indicated. In parting I would like to add-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Judith A. Erola: -that this is obviously a case once again of the fact that there is really no substitute for the real thing.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. He will be aware of the Paul Graham case wherein Mr. Graham won his case under Section 31, in the Federal Court last fall, only to have the Minister then proceed to the Supreme Court of Canada with an appeal.
It has come to my attention recently that a judge in the tax court in Saskatchewan has thrown out a case in which Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
February 14, 1984
Oral Questions
Neil Nikolaisen was appealing a reassessment under Section 31, and used the Graham case as a precedent. Because the whole matter concerning Section 31 is in such a mess as far as the courts are concerned, why will the Minister not call a moratorium on all Section 31 cases until the matter is at least cleared up in the courts?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of the second court judgment mentioned by the Hon. Member. However, I wish to emphasize that I am concerned about the application of Section 31 with respect to those cases which it does not cover, because, as the Hon. Member knows, generally speaking, Section 31 covers only two categories and the problem lies with the third category, for which there are no specific instructions. I shall examine this second case he has brought to my attention.
On the other hand, I wish to remind him that we have decided actually to appeal the ruling in the Graham case because of the implication it could have in interpreting the Income Tax Act. However, 1 should underline to the Hon. Member and all the Members of this House that I am concerned about the interpretation of this Section and the audit practices, especially when losses are disallowed where a farming operation does not meet the test of a possible or probable profit.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: I hope this issue will be addressed in the Budget, because it will not go away. We on this side of the House will continue to raise it until some relief is brought to many farmers across the country who are suffering under the heavy and hard hand of the Minister's Department.


SEIZURE OF TAX APPELLANTS' BANK ACCOUNTS
Lorne Everett Greenaway: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Is it legal under the laws of Canda to garnishee bank accounts and to use third party demands to collect funds from taxpayers who are appealing their reassessments?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered the Hon. Member many times. I do not recall which Section of the Income Tax Act deals with this matter, but it is clearly stated therein that, even if there is an appeal or an objection to an assessment notice, the Minister must collect the amounts which have been assessed.


EMPLOYMENT
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. 1 have before me the letters patent of last February of the Canadian Alliance for Italian Integration and Culture, the discussion paper of the Liberal Party of last summer asking for a storefront operation for the Liberal party, the application of this society for a storefront office, and finally the grant of $583,000 to this group of prominent Liberals.
As the Minister of his Department, as the political Minister for Metropolitan Toronto, and as one who hopes perhaps to serve in a leadership capacity some day, when did he first find out about the Liberal connection with this particular grant and the opposition from the social services community in Metropolitan Toronto?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. gentleman for having sent me some of this information before Question Period. Unfortunately the background documents which were to have been attached to his letter were not there.


John Carnell Crosbie: They have been shredded.


John (Moody) Roberts: I have asked my office to get them from his office, so I have not had a chance to look at all the material which he sent to me.
In relation to the two specific questions which I think he asked, the first being when was I aware of the representations made by the social service agencies, I became aware of those representations when they were made to me, which was after the contract for the grant had been signed. As to the question about the political connections, or the document outlining the political manifesto, or whatever it was, the answer is that I think I received it yesterday after the Hon. Member raised it in the House. It was a document which had been sent to me last week when I was not in the country. I believe my staff requested it when there were some newspaper references to it. But that was the first time I was aware of that document and therefore the alleged political affiliation of all these people in terms of the document which he has mentioned.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Minister might be interested in knowing that I checked with the Public Service in Toronto and was informed that this grant had the most perfunctory recommendation and that it had opposition to it; there are clearly Liberal connections behind the grant.


REASONS FOR AWARDING GRANT
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister gave an interview yesterday after my question, to the Toronto Star. He was quoted as saying "that in approving a project and signing it, it was certainly not done on the basis of
February 14, 1984

any connections that the sponsors might or might not have had with any political party".
In view of the opposition by United Way, the opposition of the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto, and the fact that an organization called COSTI-IIAS has been in the business successfully for 30 years, why did the Minister approve such a duplicitous approach, which is a sell-out of the legitimate unemployed in Canada who have real needs?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, again there are several questions. I thought 1 made it clear in my first answer that the approval of the project took place before the representations from the various social agencies were received, as he just touched upon in his second question.
There are two other points I would like to make clear. First, groups or people are not precluded from applying for government programs because they have had in the past, or have in the present, some political affiliation. I am sure there are many people of New Democratic persuasion who apply for grants or for contributions. I can assure him that there is not a political determination in the decision making process when I approve or reject a proposal or project, because I do not inquire as to what is the political affiliation of the individuals applying for grants. I think it would be very wrong for me to do so.
I think it would be very wrong for me, for instance, to ask whether a group making a proposal from Toronto is or is not a group of NDP supporters, or whether that group is or is not a group of Conservative supporters. I do not think that is the appropriate question for me to ask in coming to a decision as to whether or not a project should be approved.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: What is the appropriate question?


FORESTRY
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment, with spare-time responsibilities for forestry. Last week the Government published a report once again reaffirming our worst fears, namely, that 15 years of deliberate policy of neglect have produced a situation where the forest industry is now in a state where we see major shutdowns, the lay-off of 60,000 direct employees in that industry, and shutdowns of large centres, regions, and communities, for which there is no other economic base.
What can the Minister tell us today in terms of any contemplation of new policies which would correct this situation, new policies which would put the spending of the Government under his control so that it is channeled into clear national objectives in terms of restoring our depleted forest base and renewing and protecting our forests from future ravages?
Petitions


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, without wanting to discourage the Hon. Member about my commitments to forestry matters, which are as intense as his, I draw his attention to the fact that the study, as I understand it, is based upon an assumption, namely, that there would be job losses if the renewal of forests does not take place in his province. Therefore the question is: will this take place?
I would like to bring to the attention of the Hon. Member that in the past three years in the Province of British Columbia, and I am quoting now from memory, there has been an investment on the part of the federal Government of $12 million, $42 million and $35 million respectively. We are committed to this renewal policy, but I must remind the Hon. Member that his province as well has to play a major role because it owns most of the lands.


NEGOTIATION OF AGREEMENT WITH PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, in September, 1982, the Government announced an expenditure of $130 million. It is realized that the federal Government must assert its responsibility through a federal-provincial agreement. Last week it became apparent that there would not be a renewal of the agreement with British Columbia this year, meaning that there would not be any spending in British Columbia this year of any federal dollars in the area of forest renewal and forest protection. Incidentally, how many other provinces will be deprived of this federal-provincial arrangement? The federal Minister has had a full year to renegotiate this agreement. Why is it he cannot come to terms with his responsibility and assert himself in the manner which is clearly his mandate?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, I encourage the Hon. Member to check with his friends in Victoria, and not to arrive at hasty conclusions before the negotiations have been concluded.


PETITION
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) on Monday, February 13, 1984, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
1 382________________________________________COMMONS DEBATES______________________________________February 14, 1984
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Agriculture-Mrs. Cote.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 259, 353 and 365.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	Does the Northern Transportation Company Limited designate barges for fuel service only and, if so (a) how many are in service (b) what types of fuel do they carry?
2.	Do the barges carry deck cargo when not carrying fuel and, if so, are (a) they stripped of their fuel retains (b) the tanks purged prior to use of the deck area for vehicular traffic and storage of deck cargo?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: The Northern Transportation Company Limited advises as follows:
1.	The barges in Northern Transportation's operating fleet are ail dual purpose, capable of use for dry cargo and petroleum products. They are used for either or both types of cargo depending on the mix of goods to be transported.
The petroleum products carried include various grades of oil including bunker, diesel, leaded motor alkalite, aviation and motor gasoline, leaded and unleaded, and jet fuels.
2.	It is current policy and practice that barges which have been in fuel service for highly volatile products and which are subsequently designated for dry cargo, are stripped and gas-freed prior to cargo operations.


Mr. St. Germain: 1.	For the fiscal year 1982-83 what was the total budget for Design Canada and what was its mandate?
2.	In the same year, how many persons were directly employed by the Agency?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister or Regional Industrial Expansion):: 1. For the fiscal year 1982-83, the total budget for Design Canada was $1,099,221, including salaries. Its mandate was to promote and expedite improvement of design in products of the Canadian industry.
2. In the same year, 20 persons were directly employed by the Agency.
"BUILDING FOR THE FUTURE: TOWARDS A DISTINCTIVE CBC"


Mr. St. Germain: 1.	With reference to the Department of Communications document entitled "Building for the Future: Towards a Distinctive CBC'\ what was the total cost of (a) concept and design (b) production and printing (c) distribution?
2.	Was a private firm involved in any aspect of the preparation of this document and, if so, what (a) was the name of the firm (b) work was done and at what total cost?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: In so far
as the Department of Communications is answer to the above question is as follows:			concerned, the
		Cost	Supplier
1. (a)	Concept, design and finished art ready for printer*	$ 5,924.90*	Wendesigns Ltd.*(b)	Typesetting production	$ 4,271.56	Canadian Government Printing Bureau- Jackson PlantPrinting	$ 45,508.37	Canadian Government Printing BureauFrench adaption and revision*	$ 4.200.65*	Alphascripl Ltd.*(c)	Distribution	$ 2,517.19	Canadian Government Publishing CentreTotal	$ 62,422.67	
2. Asterisks above denote two private firms, their involvement and their costs.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.

Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make my final remarks regarding the question of privilege I raised in this House on February 6, 1984. I first want to say that I am, of course, not at all surprised that the Minister



February 14, 1984

disputed my facts. However, as the Minister well knows, that has absolutely no bearing on my question of privilege and is absolutely irrelevant to the case. The Minister's opinion is very important and it will be vital during the committee's consideration of this matter, but not until then. The fact is that a phone call was made-and I think we have agreement on that much-a telephone call in which my office was threatened that it should behave or act in a certain way or it would be treated in a certain fashion.
Second, the Minister would say that because 1 did not take the call to my office personally, what I say is just hearsay. If that is the case, the same must, of course, apply to the Minister's argument that 1 have no question of privilege. Clearly only a committee, after hearing all of the evidence, can decide what is fact and what is hearsay.
Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, page 114, Citation 322, reads:
It has been formally ruled by Speakers that a statement by a Member respecting himself and particularly within his own knowledge must be accepted-
Therefore, the question of privilege remains valid. Erskine May, Twentieth Edition, page 158, makes the indirect attempt to influence a Member as much a breach of privilege as the direct attempt when it says under the headline "Acts tending indirectly to obstruct Members in the discharge of their duty," and I quote:
Conduct not amounting to a direct attempt to influence a Member in the discharge of his duties, but having a tendency to impair his independence in the future performance of his duty, will also be treated as a breach of privilege.
The definition of "prima facie" as stated in Black's Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition, page 1,353 is as follows:
Prima Facie. Latin. At First sight; on the first appearance; on the face of it; so far as can be judged from the first disclosure;
It is that element of possibility that I believe adds up to a prima facie case of privilege. For clarity, I refer to Erskine May, Nineteenth Edition, page 347:
It has often been laid down that the Speaker's function in ruling on a claim of breach of privilege is limited to deciding the formal question whether the case conforms with conditions which alone entitle it to take precedence of the notices of motions and orders of the day standing on the order paper of public business; and does not extend to deciding the question of substance, whether a breach of privilege has in fact been committed-a question which can only be decided by the House itself.
Clearly it is only the House that can ultimately decide on privilege. Jerome Decisions, page 30, rules when there is a doubt, in other words a possibility, the question should be put to the House. In Hansard for March 27, 1969, page 7182, the Speaker's decision noted:
At first blush I would incline to the view that it is the Hon. Member's rights as a former civil servant which are at issue. He has, perhaps, a grievance against the government in that capacity rather than in his capacity as a Member of Parliament. On the other hand, Hon. Members know that the House has always exercised a great care in attempting to protect the rights and privileges of all its members. Since there is some doubt about the interpretation of the precedents in this situation, I would be inclined to resolve that doubt in favour of the Hon. Member.
When the project officer to the President of Canada Post called my office, clearly she intended to influence my actions, violating Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Page 22, Citation 67:
Privilege-Mr. Cooper
It is generally accepted that any threat to a Member, attempting to influence his vote or his actions as a Member, is a breach of privilege.
When she expressed her anger at my office for not clearing my question, she was attempting to hamper my freedom of speech; Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, page 20, Citation 55:
The privilege of freedom of speech is both the least questioned and the most fundamental right of the Member of Parliament on the floor of the House and in committee.	.
Finally, Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, page 23, Citation 72, reads:
Since 1867, the House has had a rule specifically forbidding the offer of money, or any other advantage to a Member.
I was offered an advantage to behave in a certain fashion or threatened with a disadvantage if I did not react in a certain way, a way that may well affect my ability to represent constituents. I cite Erskine May, Twentieth Edition, page 143:
It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.
I believe this action from the office of the President of Canada Post was indeed an attempt to insult, threaten and influence my actions in this House.
The question here is not one of personalities but one of principles. It must, of course, be clearly understood by all Canadians that the independence of Parliament is paramount; freedom of speech in this House by a Member cannot be curtailed. I am prepared, if you find, Mr. Speaker, that there is in my case a breach of privilege, to move the appropriate motion to have this matter referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I wish very briefly to add one additional dimension to the principle of when or when not to find a prima facie case, which is all the Chair is required to decide at this point.
Given the circumstances and the confliction between the statement made by the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper), who raised the question of privilege, and that of the Minister who responded, I suggested that this is the position the Chair is in. In order for the Chair to come to the decision that there is no question of privilege, the Chair must make a judgment upon the acceptability of one or other of the positions taken. In my respectful submission, that is not the business of the Chair. If the Chair decides that there is a question of privilege to be dealt with, the Chair is not making that value judgment but is coming to the conclusion that the conflict between the two statements that have been made is a matter that must be put to the House. Quite frankly, I believe that is the position which the Chair is in and which the Chair should take.
The question that the Hon. Member for Peace River raises is the closest to the privilege bone that we have come, certainly in your tenure in the Chair, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, when

February 14, 1984
Privilege-Mr. Cooper
comparing it with a good many previous questions of privilege raised in this Parliament, it is one of the most substantial and serious that has been raised thus far. No other Members have participated in the conflict that exists between the Minister and the Member, both of whom are entitled to be believed on the basis of their status as Members of the House of Commons. Clearly the conflict should not be resolved by the Chair. That is what urges me to submit to you that this is a very proper question to be put to the House, and it should be.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I heard only the concluding remarks of the House Leader of the Opposition. One thing strikes me in his remarks, he seems to be talking about a conflict between the Hon. Member and the Minister. There is no conflict between the Member and myself. The Hon. Member alleged in the House that his privileges had been breached as a result of a telephone conversation with an employee of the Canada Post Corporation. I enquired and it would seem that he did not speak directly to that Canada Post employee. Consequently, his whole question of privilege is based on the remarks of a third party which were conveyed to him. In other words, his so-called question of privilege is based on hearsay and that is why I do not see it as a matter of privilege. It is more a question of disagreement between parties, as happens regularly in the House when Members on either side do not see eye to eye. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that is a matter of disagreement rather than a question of privilege.
[ English]


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I want to intervene only very briefly in this matter. Because this matter arose and it did appear to be the closest I have seen to real privilege, I did some reading.
You cannot, of course, be asked to make a decision of fact in this matter. We have been hearing hearsay. If you think there is a prima facie case, that is the very reason it should be sent to the committee for it to decide. It strikes me it is very much like a preliminary hearing. It is not for the judge at a preliminary hearing to decide the facts. From the evidence which he hears he has to decide whether there is sufficient concern to send the matter on for a proper trial. This is the same as the historical reasoning for having grand juries. Only one side ever presented its facts in front of a grand jury. A grand jury never tried the facts.
It seems to me that you have been given some information which is hearsay. You cannot decide on the basis of hearsay. I do not believe you can decide that there is a dispute between the Members because there is not really a dispute between the Members. The matter arises before that. I believe the allegation in existence is one which would derogate from the privilege of a Member of Parliament. I do not feel it can be decided in this Chamber.
If there is a sufficient basis, from all the reading I have done I think the proper way to handle it is to get it out of the
Chamber and into a committee where a decision can be made based on the facts by calling the various people themselves. The committee will have evidence from the people who are directly involved rather than hearsay. I hope you will find so.


Mr. Speaker:: It is the intention of the Chair to review the record carefully and reserve decision for the moment.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Riis:
That this House condemns the government for:
1.	employing corporate tax handouts to produce business profits without any guarantees that such tax benefits would result in new investment or job creation;
2.	increasing the tax burden on Canadians at the very time when more stimulus is needed in the economy; and
3.	allocating job-creation funds in a partisan fashion not based upon local employment levels.
And the amendment of Mr. McGrath:
That the motion be amended by deleting the period after the words "levels" and adding the following thereafter:
"instead of focusing on job-creation programs open to all eligible Canadians, such as career access and refundable employment tax credits".
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before two o'clock, we are debating a New Democratic Party motion today on our so-called allotted Opposition Day on which it is the function of the Opposition Parties to raise grievances with respect to Government policies. The New Democratic Party has finally decided to train its weapons on the Government for a change.
We are supportive of this resolution with respect to the confidence of the Government for a number of reasons. If there were any doubt with respect to the cynicism with which the Government benchers have dealt on this particular issue, there can be no doubt now. Government Members are equally as guilty as the Liberal Cabinet. During the course of Question Period every Liberal back-bencher was smirking, hooting and hollering approval of the cynical misuse of public funds. The people of Canada will not forgive this approbation they have given to the activities of a dying Government in its dying days.
It is not often that I join with the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker. I try to help them when they are right. There are three things which are certain in life. One is death, the second is taxes, and the third is that the NPD will be 15 per cent in the Gallup poll. These are the three certainties of life. Notwithstanding, I am going to stand by my colleagues to the left, carry on and try to support this particular motion, which is a serious one.
February 14, 1984

It occurred to me in Question Period today that the responses of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) were absolutely untenable-


James Aloysius McGrath: Unbelievable.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -unbelievable-


James Aloysius McGrath: Incredible.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -incredible. My colleague from St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has every adjective which would be appropriate to list. If he would provide me with a list at the end of my speech I will table it with the unanimous consent of the House.
It reminded me very much of the Christmas ditty. Here is the Liberal version of how moneys are going to be expended for job creation. I am not going to sing it, but as I recite it you will understand what I am saying.
In Question Period today the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) said he was making a list, checking it twice, and was going to find out who was naughty or nice. Santa Claus is coming to town!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is exactly what is happening with this group. The Minister was asked a direct question today with respect to the misuse of public funds which is occurring. I tried to bring out the magnitude of the amount of the slush fund. Do people realize how much money is dedicated for political patronage purposes in the country? It is $300 million, with no criteria applied with respect to employment levels in any part of the country but, rather, whether some Liberal somewhere says that there might be political advantage with respect to the expenditure of the moneys in one part of the country or the other.
This is an unacceptable fast track and it is the difficulty with the "grants by government" approach to job creation. The imperfections are clear. The program is subject to abuse, subject to the kind of political influence which bears no relationship to the efficient and proper expenditure of money.
I am glad that the New Democratic Party has raised this issue on the floor of the House of Commons. The Minister of Employment and Immigration refused to bring forward the criteria although a request was made some months ago. The real problem with the Minister is that he was afraid that if he let the criteria out, it would be understood by all Canadians. He was worried that all the money had not been given away at that time. That is a simple fact. By the Minister's own admission there is $19 million left which is available for Members of Parliament on an equal basis. The criteria were only released by a memo of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) on February 1. That is not an irrelevant amount of money but it is crumbs in comparison with the $300 million or $150 million per year.
Supply
As the Hon. Member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) points out, and I could not agree more, the money is needed. I know the Hon. Member for Restigouche and the Hon. Minister of Public Works, (Mr. LeBlanc), both from the Maritimes and for whom I have great respect, are not the type of people I would associate with seedy, corrupt and unpalatable patronage practices. They take their responsibility seriously so I know they will understand that many people in the country are suffering as a result of unemployment. We can argue back and forth about whether Government policies or lack of policies have much influence on the rate of unemployment. I am simply saying that the facts are that the official rate of unemployment is 11.2 per cent while it is 24 per cent for youth unemployment. Then there are the hidden unemployed who are not even trying to get jobs, which would raise the total unemployment figure even higher.
Why are we raising this issue with respect to the exercise of patronage by the Government, Mr. Speaker? We are doing it because on this side of the House we believe that the moneys available should be spent in a fair, equitable and effective way on behalf of the people of Canada who are unemployed. If it is necessary in order to get appropriate spending for Saskatchewan, I will be glad to work with the Cabinet Minister from Saskatchewan in the other place, Senator Argue. He was our version of Santa Claus. When he came into Cabinet he had a beard. He shaved it off so he is no longer Santa Claus, but simply a Liberal Minister going out, without consultation, and spending money in Saskatchewan. As the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) has pointed out on a number of occasions in the House, he is spending it without any reference to employment levels or unemployment levels in the province.
In 1983-84, $30 million was spent on the job corps and in 1984-85 it will be $40 million. How does that compare with $300 million that the Liberal Cabinet has in its slush fund? A group of unelected, unaccountable advisers to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is manipulating, to use the words of the grass roots of the Liberal Party who in open convention by resolution condemned the Government and leadership of the Party. They accused the Government of patronage and manipulation. They accused it of disregarding the parliamentary wing. They said that the parliamentary supporters were nobodies. They are somebodies now for they each have $500,-
000.	That is a very cynical way in which to garner support for the leadership of the Party.
When we see that kind of public expenditure, Mr. Speaker, I can only quote Oliver Cromwell in 1653 in the Rump Parliament when he said:
You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions, comments? Debate.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. I will deal particularly with the first part of the motion which condemns the Government for employing corporate tax hand-outs to

February 14, 1984
Supply
produce business profits without any guarantees that such tax benefits would result in new investment or job creation. For some time I have been concerned with the manner in which the Government is handing out moneys under both Summer Canada and the 1983-84 Canada Works program. I have made these views known to the Minister and I feel it is worth bringing them to the attention of the House.
The first part of my remarks will refer directly to the number of occasions when I, as a Member of Parliament, have intervened on behalf of individuals who have been trying to get either a loan from the Federal Business Development Bank or a mortgage from the Farm Credit Corporation. When we intervene on behalf of individuals in our ridings and deal with institutions such as the Federal Business Development Bank, we are told that the loan which a constituent wants does not fall under the terms of its mandate. When we go to the Farm Credit Corporation on behalf of farmers who, under the Liberals' high interest rate policy, have suffered severely, we find that it is out of funds.
Under the circumstances I find that I cannot agree with a program designed to give money on a donation-grant basis to profit-making enterprises on the basis that the events described in a Canada Works program application will produce jobs. That is my first objection to the method by which the Government hands out money under these programs.
My second objection is to the method by which the Government makes these programs available to the people in the riding. As far as I am concerned the advertising and information programs which tell a business firm in Simcoe North that it can or should apply under either the Canada Works or the Summer Canada Program is woefully inadequate. In my opinion, only the most extensive advertising campaign and effort to contact businesses in the riding would result in every business in my riding being in a position to apply for the programs. I am just not convinced that has been done. I have not seen enough in the way of advertisements. I do not believe there have been enough mailings to ensure that every business in my riding is on an equal footing. Therefore, I have two problems so far. First, I cannot get the loans under given programs, under a given institutional setup and, second, under the Canada Works and Summer Canada Programs, the advertising and information process is woefully inadequate.
My third point is that the employees of Canada Manpower are the civil servants who determine which applications should be accepted and sent forward to the Minister for approval. I have interviewed the people in Canada Manpower in my riding of Simcoe North who make these decisions and I believe that in my particular case, although they mean well, Mr. Speaker, meaning well and being able to do well are two different things. In my opinion, the employees of Canada Manpower do not have the training and are not in a position to make value business judgments which I, after 25 years as both a chartered accountant and a lawyer, would hesitate to make. I do not doubt their sincerity, but I doubt their qualifications to make
those value judgments. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Government is at odds with itself. In the former Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce the Government had qualified and trained civil servants in the field who were in a position to make these decisions. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the programs the Government has available to it, it has the qualified people from the former Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to make these decisions. Unfortunately, those are not the employees or civil servants who are making the decisions. Instead, we have the Canada Manpower people who are not trained or qualified to make decisions whether any application will in fact produce jobs.
I would like to focus on that particular point for a moment. Will those applications under the Canada Works Program or under the Summer Canada Program in fact produce the number of jobs they say they will? I refer to an article published in The Globe and Mail between Christmas and New Year's wherein a report produced for the Ontario Development Corporation indicated that until 1979 the number of jobs created by loans was 39 per cent fewer than the number of jobs which the applications said would be created. In other words, Mr. Speaker, there is a very definite gap between the number of jobs which applications say will be produced and the number of jobs actually produced, according to the Ontario Development Corporation. They key difference between those Ontario Development Corporation applications and the applications we are dealing with here is that the Ontario Development Corporation lent money, whereas in fact under the Summer Canada and Canada Works Programs we are granting money. We are giving it away. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to Hon. Members of the House, that we are making a mistake when we simply grant money holus-bolus and depend upon that alone to create jobs. Those jobs will more likely be created, I suggest, if the moneys are given by way of a loan.
Something else which bothers me about the programs we have, Mr. Speaker, is that they do not appear to carry with them sufficient penalties to police a program effectively and return the money to the Government if the applicant fails to live up to the qualifications of the program. In fact, there are no penalties in the programs other than simply discontinuing the grant. Therefore, we have a situation where the Government is giving away money by way of grants with no penalties available to it under the process if in fact those jobs are not being created.
Let me deal for a moment with my position as a Member of Parliament. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, because of what I have said, that we-and I include all Hon. Members of the House of Commons-are placed in a difficult position, no matter what our political background. If a Member of Parliament approves one application over that of an applicant's competitor, we are placed in an untenable position. If an applicant in a certain field of business hears about a program and makes an application, and another applicant, or other applicants, do not hear about it, how can they be considered to be on an equal footing with the successful applicant? What is
February 14, 1984

our position when we as Members of Parliament, dealing with, as I suggest, relatively untrained civil servants, put the Final seal of approval on those applications? I suggest to you that where we have applicants competing in the same field of endeavour, such as the tourist business or the manufacturing of certain types of sports and athletic equipment-and in a riding such as mine one can determine who they are-we as Members of Parliament, are placed in an untenable position. If we endorse the application of an applicant, and that application is successful, and we find out that that particular applicant and his employees support our Party politically, are we then subject to the charge that we have engaged in pork barrel politics? Since we are now putting a personal stamp of approval on these applications, if we turn an application down, are we to be subjected to doubts about our judgment because of the very close contact which the Government wants Members of Parliament to have with the applications?
Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I want to address the question of helping businesses with a proven track record with these grants. I would not have as much difficulty with this question if we were lending them money. But we are granting them money, we are taking the taxpayers' money and giving it away under the Summer Canada Program and the Canada Works Program. I believe we would be doing a better job with the taxpayers' money if we were lending it. I would even be happy if we had a system of forgiveable loans, whereby if a company said it was going to create 50 jobs and it received $100,000, and at the end of the year 50 jobs were created and in place, the $10,000 could be forgiven. At the end of the second year, another $10,000 could be forgiven if the jobs were still in place. But I have very serious doubts that we do justice to the taxpayers when we give their money away.
To go one step further, what about the applicants who receive funding under these grants, who put this funding into fixed assets and then sell out? They build their buildings, which were going to house the employees for these new jobs, and once they have them built, they sell the buildings and they are on their way. There are no penalties, Mr. Speaker. These people have made a windfall profit on the backs of the Canadian taxpayers. There is no provision in these grants for second mortgages going back to the Government, nothing to hinder this from happening, and that is what I object to. Even if we are going to grant money-and I suggested earlier we should lend it-surely to goodness we should put a hold on the fixed and movable assets. In Ontario we would do it by a mortgage and personal property security lien. Surely we owe it to the Canadian taxpayers to protect them from people getting money under these grants, building the fixed asset, selling out, and then, first thing you know, moving to Florida. We have not done that, and that is what I object to.
1 zeroed in on my particular area in my comments, Mr. Speaker, but I believe they apply to ridings all across the country. I want to say specifically that I am in no way reflecting on the civil servants I have dealt with in the Barrie office of Canada Manpower. I have had nothing but excellent
Supply
relationships with them when we came to discuss funding for non-profit organizations. My concerns are strictly with the entry of the Government holus-bolus into the granting process to profit-making organizations.
Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I want to touch upon what I think this method of funding has done to the volunteer sector of our society. I think it is important to get this on the record. The policy of the Government has been to fund volunteer organizations for one or perhaps two years but no further. It does not want to get into long-term funding of volunteer organizations. However, over the past four or five years what has happened is that volunteer organizations have looked at the source of funding and said, "We have a program which will fit in; we want that funding and we are going to use it". They get the funding, use it for one or two years and then find that it disappears under the criteria. I suggest that this has worn out the welcome of a lot of these programs with the volunteer sector of our society. They have found they cannot continue without the funding. It takes a year or two to get the kinks out of a program and get it rolling, then the funding goes and they cannot continue. I suggest that if we are not at the point, we are very close to the point where the volunteer sector is going to be suspicious of these programs. I raise that flag of warning that we are doing a disservice to the voluntary sector.
I want to close, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I support wholeheartedly and have addressed my remarks to the first part of the NDP motion. I feel very strongly about the dangers we are facing with this type of program. I am on record with the Minister as saying I will not touch, look at, sign or have anything to do with grants to the corporate sector of my riding because of the danger 1 have outlined here. I continue to be very interested in making funding available to the volunteer sector, especially in my riding. 1 worked very hard to get funding for the Huronia Tourist Association, which has a program to house people connected with the Papal visit. 1 have done that, and I am fully in support of whatever we can do on a one-shot basis for these types of programs. However, I raised this question with the Auditor General. I suggested to him, in my capacity as Member of Parliament and in my capacity as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and I suggest to you, that one or two years down the road the Auditor General will look at how many jobs were actually created compared with the number which the application said would be created by way of a grant or hand-out. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, the jobs are just not there for the reasons I have outlined.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions, comments, debate. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.


Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Speaker, concerning the motion before the House today, we on the Government side should not be surprised at the fact that all kinds of

February 14, 1984
Supply
allegations are being made regarding the Government's job creation programs. They are so popular it is almost inevitable. The Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), who moved today's motion, knows how strongly Canadians support the Government's efforts to sustain our economic recovery. The Hon. Member is also aware that one of the most reliable ways of sustaining economic recovery is direct job creation.
Mr. Speaker, this country's greatest resource is its people. We must remember this when, owing to circumstances, the State has to play a greater role in supporting the economy. The federal Government has a responsibility to keep the impact of economic upheaval on the Canadian people to a minimum, and we have seen that such economic disturbances are often worldwide, as in the last recession.
We firmly believe that it is up to the private sector to provide jobs that will enhance the lives of Canadians. However, the Government has a duty to take measures to create an economic environment that will promote job creation. Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, the Government must play a life-saving role as we have seen in recent years when certain large corporations had to be helped. We spared no efforts at a time when, as I just pointed out, the world economic situation was going through a deep recession which had a very severe impact on the labour market. At that time we promoted the concept of work sharing, to keep the number of Canadians being laid off to a minimum.
During that same period, recognizing the fact that shortterm solutions were not enough, the Government established a new National Training Program to help workers adjust to changing labour market conditions. Looking back, we have to admit that this country was able to pull through in better shape than other countries thanks to a more enlightened use of economic "cushions" such as our job creation programs and Section 38 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, which was used in a novel way to create thousands of jobs in the mining, forestry and fishing industries. Mr. Speaker, the Government has a duty to help the neediest groups of our society, and that is why a number of job creation programs focus especially on those groups that are most severely affected by unemployment. Similarly, we must ensure that regions particularly affected by factory or business shutdowns leading to massive layoffs are clearly identified, before proceeding with a fair distribution of grants. This is one of the reasons why, for instance, a number of ridings will receive more than the basic grant provided under the Canada Works Program.
Mr. Speaker, job creation is a subject that will continue to be discussed in the House, because thanks to additional funding announced in the Speech from the Throne, the Canadian Government's Job Creation Program for 1984-1985, including Canada Works, will have a budget of over $1.1 million, not counting expenditures for the present fiscal year, during which 260,000 people will have benefited, through these programs, from a total investment of $805,700,000. There is hardly a
Member in this House, Mr. Speaker, who has not seen some very successful undertakings among his constituents, thanks to these job creation programs. As a result, many organizations, have been able to help Canadians earn a minimum wage while helping the community. Mr. Speaker, what about the active role played by the private sector which, among other things, sponsored over 22 per cent of Quebec projects under the NEED Program? What about the sustained efforts on the part of municipalities which are anxious to promote employment development? We have to admit that, both in job creation and vocational training, the Canadian Government has made a tremendous effort to support the private sector so as to ensure a sound economic recovery.
I would suggest that more often than not people have a tendency to discredit programs which foreign countries try to emulate or fit into their policies and which make it possible for workers to regain the satisfaction of having a job while doing something useful for the community, not to mention the fact that a good many of those jobs turn out to be permanent. For any youth who lands his first job ever, it is like money in the bank when he eventually seeks permanent employment, because he can indeed say that he has experience which he would not have gained otherwise.
Since I have this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, l would like to review the four new job creation progams sponsored by the Canadian Government which resulted from streamlining twelve employment programs. I would be remiss if I failed to point out that those new programs were structured in close co-operation with private industry, other Government levels, labour leaders and spokesmen for the education sector.
Two programs-Career-Access and Job Corps-are designed to get the best out of our human resources. In other words, they are designed to help people get ready to occupy a full-time job and to join the labour force. Another progam, Canada Works, is aimed at the employment problems caused by the economic recession or by any other unforeseen disturbance on the labour market, for instance, the closing of a plant or a business, massive lay-offs, and so on. The fourth program, known as LEAD, or Local Employment Assistance and Development Program, is aimed at the community. Its purpose is to stimulate and support the development and growth of employment locally.
Let us look first at the Career Access Program. If we exclude operational expenditures, some $294 million were allocated to this program for the year 1984-85 to create opportunities for those who find it very hard to get permanent jobs. Its main thrust is to tackle one problem which has become more serious these last few years, namely making the transition from classroom to workplace. Through the Career Access Program, we can bring practical solutions to two problems which have concerned many people for too long,
February 14, 1984

namely, how to obtain a job without the skills and the experience required, and also, how to acquire the experience and the skills required if you cannot get a job. The Career Access Program offers a wage subsidy to employers who hire young people and give them on-the-job training. The subsidy, applicable for up to six months, can reach 50 per cent of the gross wages paid to the participants. The jobs created under this program consist essentially in training workshops designed to help participants acquire the skills they need to become eligible to full-time employment. The Career-Access Program provides also for the payment of financial assistance to handicapped and otherwise disadvantaged people, as well as to those who are returning to the market place after being away for a long time. The initial grant which is paid to these people may amount to 85 per cent of their gross salary. This grant may be paid for up to 12 months on a decreasing basis. In some cases, a contribution of up to $10,000 may be paid toward the cost of providing facilities and equipment for the handicapped. Some 92,000 new participants are expected to avail themselves of the benefits of Career-Access Program during the fiscal year 1984-85.
The Job Corps Program, which has a similar objective, has been designed especially for those who are disadvantaged in some way or another in the area of employment. They may be physically or mentally handicapped or they may suffer from a severe social problem, such as former alcoholics or drug-addicts or offenders who need help to become productive members of society again, as well as other disadvantaged people. The Job Corps Program, which provides also for salary subsidy payments to businesses, organizations, community groups and individuals, offers disadvantaged people the opportunity of acquiring the skills, motivation, work habits and experience they need to become full share members of the work force. The program provides also for counselling services and training. For the fiscal year 1984-85, the Job Corps Program has available some $37 million, exclusive of operational costs, but including $19 million earmarked for the creation of jobs for young unemployed people. Some 4,700 new participants are expected to avail themselves of this program within the next two years.
Mr. Speaker, let us now have a look at the LEAD Program which, as I have indicated, is aimed at providing funds to encourage local development and create jobs in regions which are constantly suffering from acute unemployment. To achieve this, the program uses certain processes, including some which are somewhat complex; but no matter how complex they are, their common objective is to increase the number of jobs within the community by favouring the setting up of new businesses and the expansion of old ones. The LEAD projects must reflect the community's priorities and be consistent with a local development strategy. These projects will benefit not only to the unemployed who will find jobs, but also to the local businesses and organizations, as well as to the community as a
Supply
whole. The program provides also financial assistance to help communities identify their needs and plan their own expansion strategies.
For the fiscal year 1984-85, the monies allocated to the LEAD program amount to some $100 million, which should allow for the creation of some 17,700 jobs on a national scale. As is the case with other programs, the salary paid to the various participants under the LEAD Program should not exceed the salary paid for a similar job in the same area. Moreover, the approved projects should not be a source of unfair competition for already established businesses or organizations.
And now we come to the Canada Works Program which has a total budget of $488.4 million for the fiscal year 1984-85. Its purpose is to compensate for the loss of jobs in a recession period and to alleviate the impact of any unexpected turmoil on the labour market, as I have already said.
The Canada Works Program offers financial assistance through contributions to a wide variety of projects which nevertheless must meet certain criteria. As a rule, these projects must create at least three full-time jobs and last between six and 52 weeks, except in the case of summer jobs for students which have an 18-week maximum duration.
The proposed projects must match the skills of the participants with the job requirements. At the time of review their impact on the local economic development and their advantages for the community are assessed. The participants selected from among those unemployed for at least 8 weeks, are introduced to prospective employers whose projects have been accepted through the nearest Canada Employment Center. Priority is given to job seekers who are no longer eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, to welfare recipients or to the laid-off workers receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Under the Canada Works Program, a contribution of up to $325 per work-week may be paid as well as up to $125 for non-salary costs. The Federal government has therefore allocated over a billion dollar to these four job-creation programs in 1984-85. You will surely agree that this is an extremely cost-efficient investment, Mr. Speaker.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier in this debate today I was chastised by the Speaker for reading from a document which I was unwilling to identify for what I believe were good and sufficient reasons. It is obvious that the Parliamentary Secretary is reading from a document. I wonder if the same standard would not apply and if the Parliamentary Secretary could identify for us whether it is simply a departmental brochure, or exactly what document it is that he is reading?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In a sense, I suppose the point is well taken. The present occupant of the chair feels that while no one should literally be chastised for reading from documents, there are ample precedents. Beauchesne deals with the matter.

February 14, 1984
Supply
Members may find inspiration in notes to quite some degree. My interpretation of the practice is that one should not, for example, read a speech that has already been given in the House. That is one obvious purpose of avoiding the reading of texts. Beauchesne also says that Hon. Members may, in questions of a technical nature, for reasons of precision to ensure that the House has the best information possible, quote extensively from notes. However, the Chair feels it is up to each Member to determine, in his own best judgment, to what extent he has to quote or inspire himself extensively from notes. The Chair is not in a position to judge effectively from this distance to what degree an Hon. Member is in fact reading his speech. It is a matter of judgment which the Chair prefers to leave to Hon. Members to decide for themselves. There are instances where a Member may literally pick up a text, it could be a magazine, it could be Hansard, and proceed to read from it. That is not a speech in the true sense of the word. However, I have made my comments. I will listen to the Hon. Member again if he wishes to comment further.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your comments. This morning I had a document authored by someone. I was not prepared to put the author's name on record because there could be difficulties for the civil servant who gave me the document. In this case, if the Hon. Member were simply to indicate he is the author of the document, that would end the matter. If it is someone else's document, or another person's document from which he is reading, perhaps he could follow the procedure and let us know who the author of the document is as he continues to read it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. As the Hon. Member appreciates, 1 was not here this morning. I cannot and I would not want to pass judgment on the words uttered by the occupant of the chair at that time. I am led to understand the Hon. Member was quoting from a document this morning. Beauchesne addresses himself to that matter. It is incumbent upon Members who quote from documents to indicate the author or the source of the quotation. I understand that is standard practice. That could well be the point to which the occupant of the chair wanted the Hon. Member to address himself. There is strictly no prohibition from quoting from documents. Beauchesne requires the source or the author of the document to be identified. I think that was the conundrum of the House this morning. Otherwise I see nothing wrong with the Hon. Member continuing with his speech at this stage. I understand he is not quoting but making a speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would inform the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary that he has one minute left to conclude.


Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Speaker, I have the feeling that the Hon. Member's comments have been included in my time, because I started my speech at 3:45 p.m. Do I understand that the inappropriate comments of the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) were made on my time? I must say this is
my own speech, and if it is too specific for the Hon. Member, I am sorry. If he learns about government programs the same way he listens to speeches, I am not surprised he finds it difficult to understand them.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, when I referred to the various job creation programs, I wanted to answer specifically the motion now before us, pointing out our effort in the area of job creation.
To conclude, all the concerted efforts made across Canada and involving as they do all regions, needless to say, are aimed at ensuring that all Canadians have an opportunity to contribute to the economic recovery that is now well under way and to fully benefit from it. It is my hope that this goal will be furthered by tomorrow's Budget.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, who is a representative of the Government, whether his Minister approves each and every project funded under the Special Employment Initiatives projects.


Jean-Guy Dubois: Concerning the special initiative projects, a number of questions have been raised in this House. The Minister answered them yesterday and again today. According to yesterday's Hansard, and his answers will also be recorded in tomorrow's Hansard, the Minister stated that as soon as possible he will make the projects known, perhaps Monday or possibly earlier.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, could the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House how many people are employed in the Department of Employment and Immigration for the express purpose of dealing with project allocation under these funds?


Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Speaker, I take note of the question. Many officials in the Department of Employment and Immigration are involved in all job creation projects. I did not make an exhaustive survey of the entire staff of the Department of Employment and Immigration. At the same time, this can easily be checked with the estimates that have been tabled and also the supplementary estimates. To my knowledge, all the information he is requesting is there. Moreover, the estimates for the next fiscal year will have to be tabled. All the information he wants will be available. I must say that in my concern to represent my constituents and help create jobs, I have no sudden impulse to start counting heads to know whether there are one, 200 or 300 officials in the Department. What I can say is that there are enough to create jobs in Canada.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, could the Parliamentary Secretary explain to us the difference between some of the other programs he mentions, such as NEED and Canada Works? It
February 14, 1984

is possible to go to a Canada Manpower centre, get an application form and apply for employment creation money under the programs he mentions. It does not seem possible to do that same thing under the Special Employment Initiatives Program. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House why the difference? Can he tell us how one applies for the Special Employment Initiatives Program?


Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Speaker, when the criteria for this program were discussed in this House and before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, it was said that this was a job creation program designed to have much faster results, to have flexible criteria and not to entail any bureaucratic problems.
Since November, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, has invited all the Members of this House to send him their projects and said that he could meet their needs adequately. I am therefore very surprised at this question about applications under this program. I know that one of the colleagues of the Hon. Member for Calgary-I forget whether it is Calgary West or Calgary East-who has been sitting in this House since 1968 has submitted some projects. I mean the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle). How very strange! Of course, he did his job. If certain other Members had also looked at the budgets of June 1982 and April 1983, they would have learned how to submit an application. However, instead of discussing program criteria and levels, they may have been more interested in squabbling over leadership issues and looking for 14-and 15-year old delegates and people in bars.


Gérald Laniel: I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary which also concerns the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), who was Minister of Supply and Patronage, I believe, in the Clark Cabinet. Since the Hon. Member for Joliette has admitted in this House that projects in the amount of $400,000 had been approved for his constituency and has even stated publicly that he did his job, as the Hon. Member has just pointed out, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the Hon. Member for Joliette is still doing his job. Has he submitted other projects to the Minister for approval?


Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Speaker, I could not say exactly what projects the Hon. Member has submitted directly to the Minister for job creation assistance under the Canada Works and NEED programs. The Hon. Member for Joliette has submitted his applications and has received the grants as provided for in the announcement made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration last September and also in the Speech from the Throne. As for as the programs to promote immediate job creation are concerned, I am only referring to the comments made by the Hon. Member for Joliette which I
Supply
have seen in the newspapers saying that he wanted still more money for his constituency, that he had been granted $400,000 and that he was working to get still more.
In one simple word, in view of what the Hon. Member for Joliette himself has said, the answer would be yes, Mr. Speaker.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary may recall that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) gave some interviews last week in which he indicated that one criterion for Special Employment Initiatives projects was that they had to be the kind of project which made the Government look good. How important was that particular criterion?


Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Speaker, how can we be doing this simply to make the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) look good? Am I to understand that we are not such generous people even though, in the case of Quebec and constituencies elsewhere, but mainly in Quebec, to use the same terms as the Hon. Member, we are also being fair to the Hon. Member for Joliette, who has benefited from these projects? I do not see how this can be said to affect Government Members. As far as I know, the Hon. Member for Joliette is not a member of the Government party, but of the Progressive Conservative Party, the very same party as the Member who is asking me these questions. Members of his party should perhaps stop their internal bickering and begin discussing the budgets of June and April 1983, even if they date back several months. If they do so, they would notice the existence of all these job creation programs.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether we could call upon the Hon. Member, on his word as a Member of the House, to tell us with absolute clarity that the criteria used to allocate these funds were in fact identical to the criteria we received on February 2. I wonder whether we could call upon him to indicate that there were not special criteria, as the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre indicated, but that the real criteria used to allocate that $288 million to $300 million were in fact the written criteria which every Member of the House received on February 2. Could we have the Hon. Member's word that the written criteria were the real criteria?


Jean-Guy Dubois: As far as the document of February 2, 1984, which was sent to all the Members of this House, is concerned, I can certainly assure the Hon. Member that the criteria for this program are exactly as stated in the February 2 document published by the Department of Employment and Immigration. This document was sent by someone who acts as assistant in that Department.

February 14, 1984
Supply
1 have no hesitation in admitting this because this is a public document. All 282 Members of Parliament received it, or rather, as there are two vacant seats, all 280 Members of Parliament have indeed received these criteria and all the Members, whether they are from Alberta, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Quebec or Ontario, are in possession of the same document dated February 2, 1984.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Do I understand correctly that there were no additional criteria, that the ones written down were the only criteria used in the allocation?


Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Speaker, I am very positive concerning that. The answer is yes. Maybe it would be better if I spoke in English. The answer to this question and to the previous one is yes.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to participate in a debate on a motion of the New Democratic Party-these great social planners, these great central planners, these great planners of an industrial strategy designed to guarantee and deliver social justice, equity, fairness and equality to everyone! It is almost as if the NDP has not yet discovered that for the last 15 years we have suffered misery from the results and consequences of that kind of planning. The motion is designed to point out certain inequities which may exist in the treatment of earned income of large corporations and in terms of the concessions and loopholes that might exist which permit large corporations to be in a privileged tax position.
That is all very interesting, but while it may be true that we have an over-concentrated large corporate sector, it is nothing else, in my opinion at least, than a result of and a reaction to central planning and concentration of power in a central place by Government. Companies have been made instruments of national policy. In order to carry out the social role assigned to large corporate entities, they have to grow in size.
Of course it is true that our large corporate sector derived its strength and size from the fact that we are an exporting nation, that we are rich in resources and that our prime resource industries require large corporate entities to harvest and produce the products resource industries are capable of producing and to ship them world-wide in an effective way. It is our history and our nature to have large corporations. However, in recent years, as a result of the central planning of the present Government, there has been the emergence of certain corporate entities which no longer bear any resemblance to free enterprise. That is not by their choice, it is by the choice of this Government which has made them instruments of social policy.
Let me explain what I mean when I say that we have assigned to our corporations and our businesses an inordinate amount of social responsibility. I see the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) in the House. He will remember the story about a mine in his riding which took 15 years to plan and when it was finished the capital involved in bringing the mine
into production was massive; 35 per cent of it had absolutely nothing to do with the mine itself but concerned the building of a town, a swimming pool, a school and all social amenities which go along with a town. The Government assigned that responsibility to the company. At the same time it made it very difficult for that particular company-or any other company, resource venture or business-to raise the necessary capital to bring the venture onstream. Through FIRA and policies of economic nationalism, which are supported by the NDP, it was and is exceedingly difficult for companies to raise the necessary capital to bring such ventures onstream, particularly since it takes 15 years, 20 years or even longer from the inception of the scheme until it comes to fruition. Again that is because of the over-extended regulatory process and the unco-ordinated regulatory process, not only in terms of the different Departments of the federal Government but in terms of the other legitimate players in the scheme-the provincial governments, municipal governments and so on.
Canada is no longer a very hospitable or good place in which to plan or to invest. This is why our mining industry, for instance, operates at 50 per cent capacity and our forest industry-the goose which lays the golden egg-operates at something like 60 per cent capacity. That is why, in an attempt to compete with new players in international marketplaces, we have seen over the last 50 years a total change in the nature of our market economy. It is no longer a free market economy. Companies which are not already nationalized or taken over by government are nothing but instruments of social policy. For instance, when a mine shuts down in the Yukon and people are laid off, it might be given a $30 million grant to keep operating. We are totally unconcerned or ignorant of the fact that that might create distortions in the marketplace. Here is one company that now has $30 million to produce its product, $30 million on which it does not have to pay interest or even repay. Naturally that creates certain distortions in terms of the balance sheets. It creates problems in terms of the investment decisions that other companies or investors may make.
How did this come about? What is it that got us into this serious situation, and it is serious? I commend the New Democratic Party for bringing to the attention of the House the fact that we have massive unemployment and the fact that businesses and corporations have not had the means to respond to the challenge by expanding their productive capacity. We are no longer competitive. Our companies are now suffering from having become partners in a centrally planned economy, permitting government to insert itself and stand between them and the pressures of the market, taking risk out of enterprise. We are now suffering the consequences.
Some of that has to do with the fact that our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has had an obssession to proceed in this fashion. We have pretended to be partners, major players in the industrial scheme of the western world, the OECD countries. We are totally ignorant of the fact that we are not like other industrial countries in the western world. We are not like
February 14, 1984

Japan, Germany, France or Britain. Our industrial strength rests on the pillars of our major primary resource industries such as agriculture, fishing, forestry and mining. These are resources of which our industrial partners in the western world are deprived. They have to buy them from us. We compete with them on an equal basis. I want to touch on this for a moment.
On the question of foreign aid and closing the gap between the developed and underdeveloped world, there is an obvious need to create an economy in the Third World rather than just give foreign aid. The NDP members understand that. They at least pretend to have compassion for people in the Third World, although when they suggest we build barriers around our countries, increase tariffs and deprive poorer countries from trading with us, that is not the way to go. What we have done, in competition and in collusion with our industrial partners, is to say that rather than giving the Third World outright cash grants to buy food or whatever, we should permit them to develop their own industrial base. If I were a Japanese planner, I would ask, what could be better than to develop a copper mine in Chile? That would increase the supply of copper, create keener price competition and be good for Japanese industry.
Is it good for industry in Canada? I say not. We give a loan or a grant of $200 million to start a copper mine in Mexico or Chile, and we have been active in both countries in this area, we are not just giving away $200 million. Nobody decries that. We are giving away $2 billion of the copper production in our country. We are also giving away 200,000 jobs. That is what we are doing.
We recently built a pulp mill in Malaysia. They will have absolutely no problem selling their product in a newly emerging, very powerful trading bloc in the Pacific Rim. The Minister says that if we had not built that pulp-mill, somebody else would have. That is true. However, it also means that if we do not tie a noose around our neck, somebody will tie it around our neck for us. It is absolutely ridiculous for us to compete with other industrial nations for enterprises designed to develop the economy in the Third World.


Mr. Blais:: You don't believe that.


Frank Oberle: I do. The ignorance shows through. What should we be doing in the Third World? Maybe we should tell our industrial partners that we should develop manufacturing plants in Chile and Mexico instead of copper mines. If they want to develop copper mines in Chile or Mexico, let us develop something else. Let us spend our $200 million differently from our industrial partners. That is an example of how our industries have become instruments of public, domestic and international policy. It is clear that we have no industrial plan. We are competing with players in the international scheme whose economies are structured entirely differently from our own. 1 have given the reasons for that.
The NDP Members would have us believe that when you build a pulp mill in Malaysia, they will require our motors, machines and engineers during construction and the jobs will
Supply
accrue to the golden triangle. They believe that $200 million, or a good part of it, will be spent in Canada. That is all that will be spent in Canada. As I demonstrated, it will cost us $2 billion in the long run because we will be exporting our jobs and giving away our industrial strength.
We have rotted the pillars of our industrial strength. We cannot now turn around and decry the trend that has developed in the post-war period, particularly in the last eight or ten years. Our mining industry is operating today at 50 per cent capacity. Fifteen years ago we satisfied 95 per cent of the world demand for nickel. Today it is approximately 35 per cent. We now decry the fact that we have this competition in the Third World.
At the Macdonald Commission hearings, a former deputy minister of finance questioned the Canadian mining association. He asked whether they would agree that mining in Canada should be looked at as a sunset industry. The mining industry supports 150 small and not so small towns throughout northern Canada, directly employs 300,000 Canadians and indirectly another 400,000. Imagine that industry in the next five years being looked at as a sunset industry! I say it should not.
What is left for us? The NDP members say we simply have to compete with these emerging Third World producers on their terms. Their terms are not profit. They have different criteria. My friend from Skeena should speak to his constituents, those who create jobs in his riding, not those who run to the Minister and ask for another $30,000 grant to build a ski trail from Smithers to wherever, and they will tell him the same thing. We cannot compete with these new players on their terms. Their motivation is not profit. These are Government owned enterprises and the criteria are jobs and foreign exchange earnings. The copper mine in Chile will operate long after all the copper mines in Canada are shut down. It does not matter how much it loses. As long as there are jobs and a cash flow from foreign exchange, that copper mine will operate. It is operating because we have paid for it and are going to continue to pay for it at the expense of our own workers.
My friend from Skeena can no longer use the excuse that socialists normally use, that if you have not been a socialist by the time you are 25 you have not got a heart, and if you are a socialist after you are 30, you have not got a head. My friend from Skeena does not fit in this grey area any longer. He either has not got a heart or not got a head.
The fact is that our industrial strength lies in the great entrepreneurial spirit which has rendered Canada an industrial giant in the world. Canadians have had that great spirit and ingenuity to build a better mouse trap, to get out there and deliver a product in a shorter time and in the proper mix required by our customers throughout the world. To rekindle that spirit is our only salvation. We must get out and deliver the proper blend of copper, mineral or forest products to the people in the world who need these products at the right time and in the right mix. We are capable of doing that, but only if

February 14, 1984
Supply
we permit some leeway, give some inducements and give some incentives to our great industrial giants. We must step back and permit the market to work.
Government must get out of the marketplace. You cannot just interfere a little bit. Whenever you step in and bail out one company, you are creating distortions in the marketplace, and all the other companies find that to be unfair competition. You then have to bail out all the industries. We are going down a very slippery slope from which there is no longer any return, at least as long as the Government is in power supported by this little red rump over here. Obviously, they think all you have to do is to concentrate all the power in a central place, whether government, regulatory or corporate power of these great corporate entities, which buy, sell, switch and flip and have managed to insulate themselves totally from any of the market forces.
Whenever they get in trouble, and particularly if the banks tell them they are in trouble, they come running to government. They tell the government it has to bail them out. When they say that, they mean bail out the banks. They do not really mean bail out the workers or the company. Maislin trucking was an example of that. The bailout was not that of the workers or small contractors who were working for Maislin trucking. The bank was bailed out and then it pulled the plug and let everybody go down the chute. Nobody had any compassion for the small businessman or the worker. The compassion was for the bank. The bank had told Maislin to go to the Government and tell it to bail it out because if it did not, it would be an incredible political liability because all those people would be unemployed. The same is true for Dome Petroleum and all these other great bailouts we have been involved in.
The fact is that you cannot bail out a little bit, just as you cannot be pregnant a little bit. Once it starts, it keeps growing. It is like a cancer and it desroys our system. It is time to stop this cancerous growth. It is time that we started rebuilding the foundation of our system, get government out of the marketplace, and assign a lesser social burden.
I touched on taxes a little when I spoke about the mine in the riding of my friend from Skeena. Thirty-five per cent of the capital requirements to get that mine onstream had to do with the social structure. When you talk about taxes, think about the non-profit taxes that companies have to pay; fuel, municipal, regional and provincial taxes. All of these have escalated out of all proportion. The operating costs of many resource centres throughout Canada are now in the range of 25 to 30 per cent a year in terms of non-profit taxes. That is incredible. We have to turn that around. Instead of imposing more taxes on our corporations we must lessen the load, relieve them of this incredible social burden, and relieve them of the Government and that little red rump over there.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short question for the Member for Prince George-Peace River, (Mr. Oberle). I will not reflect too long on the twisted distortions of fact the Hon. Member presented. I suppose some people in his constituency believe it. From time to time I pass his speeches around
in my constituency because everybody gets a good laugh. The Hon. Member obviously does not know what he is talking about, although sometimes outside of the House one would think he does.
While the Hon. Member was in Government his Government decided to cut off all job creation funds. That is one of the things we are talking about today. Would he comment on how effective that is as a policy in terms of the kind of projects we are talking about today? He talks about the Government across the way giving money to Malaysia to set up a pulp mill and gives money to Chile to set up a copper mine. I have taken the time to write to External Affairs. I have all the figures. I know the figures were higher in 1979 under the Government of which that Member was a part than they have been from 1980 to 1984 with the Government sitting across the floor. The Tory Government put more money than the Liberals into opening mines in other areas of the world, in direct competition with Canadian Mines. In terms of forestry projects it gave money to South American dictatorships and to Indonesian dictatorships for forestry projects that do not occur in Canada. The Member claims to know a great deal about forestry; nevertheless that is what occurred.
Is the Minister telling the Canadian public that the Scheff-erville experience is really the way things should be handled? Is he saying that when mines close there is no responsibility of government and no responsibility of the companies? Is Scheff-erville really the motto of the Tory Party?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, talk about humour. You cannot call this Member a bare faced liar because he wears a beard. He is certainly a stranger to the truth when he talks about the policies of the Clark Government in 1979. I talked about the fact that we really have given up our options. There are no options left. The industries have no money to expand. We have destroyed their markets. We have two million people unemployed, half of them under the age of 24. What else can you do but rely on short-term job creation programs such as the Government has done for the last five or six years?
In a few months the Hon. Member may be able to call me Mr. Minister. When he does, I will probably tell him that for some time to come, to bridge this gap and to restore the entrepreneurial spirit and the foundation on which our industry and economy rest, we will probably have to continue to have some job-creation programs and some innovative programs that small business, the real job creators, could respond to. They will not create a two-month job that can be counted on to end up with 400,000 jobs four times a year in one year, all of them recycled four times. The Government has created more jobs in the last five years than we have population. It recycles these jobs three or four times a year.
The New Democratic Party supported the Members over there in February of 1980 in defeating the Progressive Conservative Budget. That Budget had very real incentives to save the farmers and fishermen in the Hon. Member's constituency. Members opposite have decided to live with the evil over there by defeating the Progressive Conservative Party. We will probably have to continue some of these programs. However, it
February 14, 1984

will not be for very long, only as long as it takes to rebuild the Canadian economy and restore a free enterprise system in this country in which the small businessman is a player and has the necessary inducements and incentives to create new permanent jobs. All these policies have been tried for the last 15 years. When I travel to the Hon. Member's constituency I find that people are starved to talk to somebody who does not distort the truth as he sometimes does. We have to restore a free enterprise economy because we will not be able to compete in the world by nationalizing all our prime industries, using the criteria that government-owned enterprises use as instruments of social policy.


An Hon. Member:: You are going to wreck Canada.


Frank Oberle: You see what we will do. The quickest way for you fellows to find out what the Progressive Conservative industrial policy will be is to entice those fellows over there to call an election. You will then find out very quickly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. During the question and answer period may I request, first of all, that Hon. Members stand to make interjections and also that Members address their remarks to the Chair.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief supplementary question. I am sure that Hon. Members noticed that the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) did not answer the question about Schefferville or questions about international forestry or international mining funding by the Conservative Party. He did not touch on the fact that the Tories cut almost all job creation projects in Canada while they were in government.
When the Hon. Member was in my constituency not too long ago, he raised one particular matter and 1 received a flood of letters from public servants about it. He said that at least 60,000 public servants should be fired immediately after the next election. Mathematics demonstrate that that would mean that about 9,000 or 10,000 people in British Columbia would be fired. Some of the RCMP and most of the military in British Columbia would be fired.
I wonder if the Member would tell us whether he intends to get rid of all the federal public servants related to federal health and welfare in British Columbia. Knowing that he has already promised to fire 9,000 people in British Columbia, would the Hon. Member tell us if he knows how many federal public servants there are in the province before he gets the hatchet out?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I thought I told the Hon. Member in my first answer that he was not correct when he said that we phased out all job-creation programs in 1979. That is not what happened. With regard to firing 60,000 civil servants, the Hon. Member's memory is very good. That happened in 1979, but in that short period we discovered that, without any fuss or bother, through attrition and the reorganization of some
Supply
departments, we were half way there without a single person being fired.
1 can tell the Hon. Member that I am not very much enamoured with Mr. Bennett's program in British Columbia. He did not discover the recession until the day after the election. We have known about it for some time. He could have done what the Progressive Conservative Government in Ontario has done over a period of years. Through attrition, intelligent planning, retraining and adult education programs, it has rearranged the structure to permit the Government to reduce its bloated Public Service. That can be done intelligently without creating the kind of pain and misery that the Hon. Member wishes to attribute to me. It was done back in 1979.
The Hon. Member referred to Schefferville. The reason the plant had to be shut down-and unfortunately if we keep these fellows in power very much longer there may be some other Scheffervilles-was that we are just no longer competitive. Five years ago Brazil was number five in the world in iron ore production, but today it produces more than Canada and the United States together.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but the time for questions has expired. The Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons).


Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Skeena (Mr. Fulton) should not be too hard on the gentleman from Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle). He should keep in mind that he is one of the moderates in that Party; one of our friends, philosophically. He is really a soul-mate. Besides, he has already indicated to the House that he has been promised a position in Cabinet- like about 85 others over there.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You had better not speak from experience.


Roger Simmons: The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) talks about experience. I admit that she and I have something in common; we both went through Cabinet on a conveyor belt.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I did something.


Roger Simmons: We know you did. We know that the lady from Kingston and the Islands did something. We have spent the last four years trying to undo it. One need only talk to the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan), formerly the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to find out what kind of things the lady did.
I want to talk about what I thought was the outstanding performance of the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River, Mr. Speaker. Today he confirmed what my good friend, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), has been telling the country for a number of months, and that is, that if you want to know what the Tories stand for, you have to elect them. You have to buy a pig in a poke. That is what members

February 14, 1984
Supply
of that Party are saying to the people of Canada. If you want to know what our policies are, he says, you have to elect us first. I say to him-dream on.
I ask the hon. gentleman from Skeena not to be too hard on the gentleman from Prince George-Peace River because if we keep him on his feet long enough he will tell us other secrets about where the Tories do not stand on various issues.
The Tories are pretty steamed up these days about the Government's job-creation programs. I wonder why that is? They say that they did not have any input in some of the projects. What is wrong with that? Why should they have any say in the implementation of those projects? The people of Canada, four years ago in their wisdom, elected a Liberal Government. When will the Tories get it through their heads that they are not the Government? Of course, as Members of Parliament they can and must have their say in the House about public expenditures and programs, but they have absolutely no right to have any say in the implementation of those programs.
If the Tories want to have a say, they can do one of two things: they can get themselves elected as a government, or they can cross the floor and support the Government. Those are the only two ways they are going to have any say in the implementation of government programs. That is the way the democratic system works.


Paul Wyatt Dick: It is the way the porkbarrel system works.


Roger Simmons: Do 1 have more to say in job creation programs than Tory MPs, Mr. Speaker? You bet your life I do; you had better believe it. I would be out of my skull to support a government that would not allow me to have any more say than if I were in the Opposition. Of course I have a say. Anyone who would suggest otherwise is misled, naive or both. Why, then, is there all this fuss about the Government's job creation program and the initiative we have been taking to create jobs across the country? Why all this contrived concern, this organized anger, this fake frothing of the mouth by the Tories? To find the answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, we must go back to 1979, to the days of the mercifully short-lived Tory Government. That Government wiped out job-creation programs which had been begun by the former Liberal Government. That is where that Party stands on job creation. It wiped out every fisheries project in Atlantic Canada with the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) as the Minister of Fisheries. I hear the Tories saying that is not true. They want to rewrite history on this one, like the gentleman from Prince George-Peace River has been taught to rewrite history on Schefferville. However, no one who lived in Scheff-erville will believe it. No one who lives in Labrador West believes his line. No one who lives in Newfoundland believes his line.
As I travel around Newfoundland, the political question I am asked most often by the average person who does not follow politics too closely is: The fellow who is the Leader of
the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney), is he the same fellow who was the President of the Iron Ore Company of Canada? They ask me if that is the fellow who was involved in Schefferville. So I say to the gentleman from Prince George-Peace River that he would be politically smart to stay a thousand miles from that subject because there is no defence at all for what was done there, and the only excuse is that the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney), as he now is, was then taking his instructions from Cleveland.


John Raymond Ellis: What kind of bafflegab is that?


Roger Simmons: The Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hast-ings (Mr. Ellis) may not understand. That is understandable. If the Hon. Member for Central Nova had at heart the interests of the people of Schefferville that day, he would not have been so quick to kowtow to the multinational interests in Cleveland. That is what it means.


John Raymond Ellis: Nonsense.


Roger Simmons: There they go again, Mr. Speaker. That Party wants to rewrite some more history. These job-creation programs are meeting very real economic and social needs in this country.


Frank Oberle: Dig a hole and fill it back in.


Roger Simmons: These job-creation programs are providing jobs. They are improving facilities in communities across this country. The Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River talks about digging holes and filling them back in. That shows just how much he knows about what these programs are doing across the country. Is a meat cutting facility in Robinson's, Newfoundland, digging a hole and filling it in again? No, it is a way of helping some farmers get their produce to market. Is the Hon. Member against that? What about a retaining wall at Crabbe's River in Newfoundland to assist some fishermen? How about a flood control structure in Rushoon, Newfoundland, to protect the property of the local residents? How about a fire hall at Morrisville, an improved water system at Red Harbour, a community centre at St. Theresa's, improvements to a hockey arena at Port aux Basques?


Frank Oberle: Now we are getting to lists.


Roger Simmons: That is hardly digging holes and filling them in again. That is addressing some very real concerns in communities across this country. Is it sinister, Mr. Speaker, is it sleazy, to help people across this land to protect their homes from flooding, to help farmers prepare their produce for market, to give fishermen's boats some protection against the sea? That is what the job-creation money, in which I have had a say, is going to do. The Tories call that sleazy, sinister, porkbarrelling. I say, Mr. Speaker, it is a very sensible use of public money. In the process we provide some job opportunities to people who have had a very rough year or so, especially in Newfoundland. The deep sea fishery has all but collapsed. The inshore fishery has had a most disastrous year.


Frank Oberle: Whose fault is that?
February 14, 1984


Roger Simmons: Seasonal construction activity is at an alltime low.


Frank Oberle: Whose fault is that?


Roger Simmons: The hon. gentleman asks whose fault that is. I can tell the Hon. Member. The unemployment rate in Newfoundland right now is 20 per cent, twice the national average, because we have in power in Newfoundland a Tory Government which would rather rail and rant, go to the super bowl games, and blame the federal Government, than to get on with the job it was elected to do, that is, to govern. Newfoundland has not had a day, an hour, or five minutes of provincial Government in the last four years or five years. It has had lots of speechifying, lots of oratory and lots of pointing the finger elsewhere. While it fiddles, Rome burns. While it engages in a continuing distraction, people are unemployed. That is whose fault it is, if the Hon. Member wants to know. We could not stand by and just point a finger and blame it all on some other people. We could not stand by and allow people in those communities to just go on welfare, so we provided what the Tories call some "porkbarrelling", what the Tories call "something sinister and sleazy", and what I call a very sensible use of public money, that is, providing slipway and wharf facilities for fishermen, providing improved facilities for farmers, and providing improved infrastructure in terms of water systems and community halls and arenas. That is what we have been doing with the money and what we will continue to do.
I believe it was the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) who earlier in the debate talked about this $300 million slush fund, as he called it. What are we doing with this slush fund, Mr. Speaker? I have just told you the kinds of things which are being done in my riding of Burin-St. George's. How about elsewhere across the country? How about in Kingston and the Islands where we have a good project which the hon. lady herself lobbied for and supported? How about Rosedale in Toronto? I am sure that people watching Question Period this afternoon saw the contradiction in the Tory questioning. In one mouthful they were charging that all the money had been spent in Liberal ridings, and in the next mouthful, the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) was on his feet complaining that some money was spent in his riding without his knowledge. We cannot take responsibility for the fact that the Tories sometimes do not do their homework. We cannot take the responsibility if they are not in touch with groups in their own ridings. If groups in their ridings have to come to Liberal Members of Parliament to get action, we cannot exactly be blamed for that. Should the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni) have washed her hands of it and said no to these people? Or should she have done what I believe is her duty to do as an Hon. Member of this House, that is, see to it that people, whether in her riding or elsewhere across this country, have access to information about government programs. Her sin is that she did her job. The sin of the Hon. Member for Rosedale is that instead of doing his homework and keeping in touch with community groups in his riding, he comes into this House and tries
Supply
to smear someone else for doing what he should have done in the first place.
Where else are we spending this money? I know that some of the ridings in Quebec are Liberal. I am told that is the case. However, I hear talk of one riding called Joliette and I am told that Joliette, at the moment at least, does not have a Liberal Member of Parliament. Yet, I hear, Mr. Speaker, that one project in that riding of Joliette, represented by a good Tory in this House, received $400,000 out of this so-called slush fund. I must admit that in the case of Joliette we do have a motive. We do have a hidden agenda, a broadly based political motive, in seeing to it that some money flows into that riding. We want to see the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. LaSalle) back here. We cannot bear the thought of having a House with no Tories from Quebec. Since their leadership convention, eight full months, the Tories have been trying to find a riding in Quebec safe enough for the temporary Hon. Member for Central Nova. That has been their preoccupation for eight months. They do a poll, they do not like it, so they do a poll on the poll. One of these days, Mr. Speaker, they will find one they think is safe enough.


Frank Oberle: Have you tried one in B.C. lately, or Alberta?


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, there is no slush fund. There is no slush fund!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Oberle: Louder.


Roger Simmons: There is no slush fund. By George, I think they have got it. There is no slush fund. This is just one of our latest efforts to help some people who are unemployed. Some of the people we are helping moved from Schefferville. They are down in my riding now and they have jobs, thanks to those programs. That is what we are doing with this so-called slush fund. What, then, Mr. Speaker, are the criteria for this fund? One-


Frank Oberle: You have to be Liberal.


Roger Simmons: One, the need for some jobs. Two, the availability of projects. These are two criteria. He says there is a third one: you have to be a Liberal. It so happens there are a lot of Liberals out there and a lot of them are administering those projects. There are a lot of Tories administering some of those projects as well as some NDP, and working on them too. The criteria are a need for jobs and the availability of some sensible projects.
The gentleman from Prince George-Peace River calls for rekindling the entrepreneurial spirit. I have news for him: we got there before him. We are rekindling that spirit. There is growth in the economy. You can ignore all the economic indicators you want to, but that will not make them go away. They clearly show that we have bottomed out. Despite all the gloom and doom from the Tories who wish everything would go wrong, such is not the case. We are providing these job

February 14, 1984
Supply
creation programs in the short term as a bridge to the point where we have other jobs flowing from a revitalized private sector, thanks to the policies of this particular Government. That is why I am delighted to be able to vote against this motion.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a comment. It is not often that I would say I feel slandered in the House, but I want it to appear on the record that I do not consider my time as a Cabinet Minister to be comparable or compared in any way with the period of time of the Hon. Member who has just spoken when he was a member of Cabinet. I make a very real distinction between the two and I want the record to show that.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, 1 am glad the lady from Kingston and the Islands made that point. The only point I was making in reference to my brief period in Cabinet, which discussion she initiated, not I, was that when I was there I did no damage at all.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Oberle: That will make the quote of the week.


Mr. Nystrom:: He did not have any time; he was only there for two weeks.
My question deals with the so-called slush fund, Mr. Speaker. In Saskatchewan we do not have any Liberal ridings to spend it on, so the money is spent differently. The program I want to ask about is the Immediate Employment Stimulation Program looked after by Senator Hazen Argue. It involves $4 million, and the only access to it is through Senator Hazen Argue. I approached officials in the Department of Employment and Immigration for capital funds and they told me that there is no such funding available. They say that under Canada Works and so on we can fund the labour component of some project but we have no money for capital expenses. We get quite a few projects like that, Mr. Speaker, and we keep on being told there is no such program. We find out later on, through contacts which have to remain confidential, that indeed Senator Argue is administering a $4 million fund. They do give out moneys for capital costs. Does the Hon. Member think it is proper that that kind of thing be kept from Members of Parliament and from municipalities?
The other question deals with the fact that public servants are not involved in screening these applications. Project officers are not involved in looking at and analysing the applications. Departmental officials do not make any recommendations. A decision is made in Senator Hazen Argue's office, and that is it. It goes to Ottawa where it is rubber stamped, and after that the Public Service become involved. Is this proper? Do we not have public servants who are supposed to do a job such as they do for Canada Works and all the other programs? Why in this case is a Minister of the Crown making these unilateral decisions rather than going through the Public Service, which is the right, proper and decent way?


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Senator from Saskatchewan has another responsibility. He is a Member of Government. In that capacity he has some decision-making authority. I do not know beyond that what the system is in Saskatchewan. However, I can tell the Hon. Member that in so far as any job creation projects I have been involved in are concerned, all have been subject to very close scrutiny, screening and examination by Manpower officials. I can only assume that the same process happens elsewhere.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, 1 would urge the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) to look at the "blues", because he may have a question of privilege to raise arising out of comments made by the previous speaker. I would also like to point out that the Schefferville settlement from Iron Ore Company of Canada has been judged by impartial observers as the largest, fairest, most generous settlement in Canadian corporate history.


Mr.   Gimai@: Come on!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: That tells us about the attitude of the Leader of this Party toward working people in this country. If that had been paralleled by Members opposite, we would have expected major government initiatives, but none of us in the House have ever seen that. But we have seen a response from a corporation president who is now our Leader, and it speaks well for the future of working people in this country under what we hope will soon be a new Government.
The question I have for the Member is the following. In the last 19 years his Party has been, with the exception of nine months, the Government of this country. Throughout most of that period, and certainly today, the Province of Newfoundland which he represents has had an extremely high unemployment rate. Can the Member tell us what he thinks is so marvellous about the policies of the Party he supports when, in a period of 19 years, nothing but unemployed people have been created in the Province of Newfoundland? Why have these marvellous policies not solved the unemployment problem in Newfoundland in 19 years?


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman for Calgary West is completely right when he says that the Schefferville settlement was a good one. It was not the settlement that I was criticizing. It is the set of circumstances that triggered the need for a settlement.
The settlement was good because my colleague from Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais) made representations. The then President of Iron Ore was publicly on record at that time as paying tribute to the gentleman who did what we on this side are good at doing, that is, getting after the Government to address some of the real problems in the country.
Yes, the Government addressed the problem but no, the Government did not create the problem. The Hon. Member who is now the temporary Member for Central Nova created the problem passively by taking his cues from Cleveland
February 14, 1984

instead of from the people he was representing in that particular community.
Let me answer the other part of the question. This Government has created literally thousands of jobs in Newfoundland but government in this country must be a partnership of both levels of government. While we have taken many initiatives to create jobs all over Newfoundland, the provincial Government in Newfoundland itself has done absolutely nothing. If the two Governments had been working together, the Hon. Member is right that the unemployment rate would be much lower. The reason it is twice as high as the national average is that there has been a Government in Newfoundland at St. John's that has absolutely refused to govern. It is too busy making speeches.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, 1 listened with a great deal of interest to the Hon. Member when he was talking about the constituency of Joliette. First he said that the Liberals had poured vast sums of money into Joliette, and then he had the gall to say that it was for the purpose of re-electing the present Tory Member. Everyone knows that this was done without concern for the present Member for Joliette (Mr. LaSalle) but to try to defeat him and buy a Liberal a seat.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gordon Edward Taylor: They start hollering when you tell the truth. Does the Hon. Member think that the Quebec people are that naive?


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, it is not the people of Quebec who 1 think are naive. Every last person in Quebec understood the tongue-in-cheek nature of the comment I made about keeping the Member for Joliette here. I only regret that my good friend from Bow River (Mr. Taylor) does not understand tongue-in-cheek because of another problem called foot-inmouth.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The period for questions and comments has expired.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to take part in this debate. Before commencing my remarks let me read the motion which is before the House. It
is:
That this House condemns the government for:
1.	employing corporate tax handouts to produce business profits without any guarantees that such tax benefits would result in new investment or job creation;
2.	increasing the tax burden on Canadians at the very time when more stimulus is needed in the economy; and
3.	allocating job-creation funds in a partisan fashion not based upon local employment levels.
We are also debating an amendment moved by the Conservative Opposition that the motion be followed by:
Instead of focusing on job-creation programs open to all eligible Canadians, such as Career Access and refundable Employment Tax Credits.
In commencing my remarks I would like first to focus on the amendment. In that respect, 1 want to draw the attention of
Supply
the House to a message I just received over the phone during the last period of questions and comments. My constituency is now faced with a new problem as a result of the blood brothers and blood sisters of this Conservative outfit to our right in the government of the Province of British Columbia.
In May of 1983 the new Valhalla Alpine Provincial Park was created in my constituency by the provincial Government in response to pressure from a very broad cross section of opinion. The President of the society which launched that successful drive will receive the Governor General's medal for conservation in Canada later this month as a result of his discussions with the Canadian tourist industry.
The industry properly feels that this new park has the possibility of providing our area with some flexibility in our local economy to compensate for some of the losses that we have suffered due to the deterioration of our forest industry, which in turn is a result of mismanagement by both the federal Government and the provincial Government under which we suffer.
The news I received a few moments ago concerns the federal Government's highly touted new employment program Environment 2000. The local Parks Branch personnel in my area who are familiar with our needs and characteristics were supporting an application under Environment 2000 to build some trails and facilities in that park in order to develop it. This, in turn, would provide some alternative employment based on the tourist industry and the service industry in that area. The provincial Ministry of Parks in Victoria has vetoed that proposal.
1 will raise the point more than once that it is strange to have a Conservative Opposition in the House which talks about focusing on job creation programs that are open to all eligible Canadians while their blood brothers and blood sisters in that gang that masquerades as a provincial Government in British Columbia kills every opportunity that we have to begin to grow, diversify and create some long-term employment in our area. It is an area that has one of the highest rates of unemployment in British Columbia and is coming close to being one of the highest unemployment areas in Canada.
The figures that I received today from Employment Canada officers in my area show that the Nelson area now has an unemployment rate of some 24.6 per cent. The unemployment rate in the major community of Nelson itself is now hovering close to 27 per cent or 28 per cent. With announced further cutbacks, further lay-offs and more closures of institutions, in my home town in that riding we will be doing very well if we are much under 40 per cent in the next couple of months. We are facing a disaster.
I am sure most politicians who try to work on behalf of their constituents will cut cards with the devil if necessary in order to get results for their people. 1 am thankful that during the last four years I have been able to play some part in co-operation with many federal officials in achieving more in terms of grants and programs to assist us in rebuilding an agricultural base in some parts of our area and rebuilding some of the cottage industry which used to thrive there. But this attempt to

February 14, 1984
Supply
diversify is of little value when it is in the form of a multitude of mini-programs-welcome and as useful as they are-while at the same time the macroeconomic policy of the Government in Ottawa and the Conservative Government in Victoria is eliminating any chance we have for establishing a healthy economy in the long run.
The forest industry in British Columbia is absolutely vital to the economic welfare of every resident of that province. This includes the people of my constituency. However, because of government mismanagement here and government mismanagement in Victoria, we are left with a residue of over-mature forests and little effective reforestation. We are left with seedlings, because of budget cuts, tht are dying before they get to the planting areas. Due to the under-funding of forestry programs by the federal government and the provincial governments, and the industry has neglected this as well, there has been long-term neglect of reforestation, regeneration policies and silviculture. As a result, we see whole communities that are beginning to wither and die. With all of the incentive programs-and I relate more particularly here to the subject matter before us-even with all the acceleration of tax incentive programs over the years, the industry has not seen fit to retool its basic plant, even though the research is available. The industry has known the plywood industry was dying, that the resource was not there to supply the West Coast and the B.C. interior plywood industry, because the nature of the resource has changed as a result of long-term mismanagement.
The technology is there. It is being used in other parts of Canada and in the United States. They are converting plants from piywood to waferboard, to chipboard, to finger-jointing and to a number of product areas where one can utilize the stock that we have remaining in order to produce a viable and economic product that can be marketed. The markets are there. Operations in place in other areas have shown that is the case. Yet with all the incentives and write-offs available to industry, and increasingly available because of the policies of this Government, the industry still has not got off its rear end. It is amazing to listen to the Conservatives to my right suggesting that the answer is to remove Government. "Let us have faith in the private sector ... Hallelujah!", they say, "The private sector will do the whole darn thing." But the private sector has not done so. It has failed miserably, even with all the tools the Government has laid open to them. It is not in this case a matter of more research. The private sector has simply failed to do its job.
1 listened to the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) a few minutes ago talking about some NDP policy that he must have invented in the far depths of his imagination, that somehow it was our policy to give taxpayers' dollars as grants or incentives to companies to move new mining operations to the South Seas or build huge pulp mills in other parts of the world. I do not know what he has been smoking but I have never heard anyone from this Party suggest that those were appropriate types of policies to be
followed. In fact, we have been in the forefront many times of criticizing the Government across the way for exactly such policies. We continue to do so for its continuing grants and incentives that have allowed both corporate mergers and takeovers on a vastly increasing scale and for subsidizing with Canadian dollars our own competition in other parts of the world.
MacMillan Bloedel, for instance, required no special grants in order to use millions and millions of Canadian-earned dollars to build up competition to its Canadian operations in South America. MacMillan Bloedel did this on its own. Why? Because it is not the prime prerogative of any large corporation to have a national loyalty. They are not bad guys for doing that. MacMillan Bloedel behaved in the way we should expect it to behave. One of the purposes surely of any government is to impose a certain value system on industry operating in this country, that one of its duties aside from serving its shareholders is to be certain that a reasonable share-and certainly it would not be going too far astray to suggest that that should be the major share of the money earned here from our resources and our labour-be reinvested here. We have not only failed to do that but the Conservatives want to encourage that failure even more-to just shovel incentives out. Then the Conservatives will demand at some time that we have more tax incentives to allow all kinds of new fancy research to replace those basic industry jobs that, due to the Conservatives policies, its friends' policies and the corporate sector's policies, we have shipped out of this country by the thousands and thousands over past decades. I cannot understand where they are coming from.
We have shared in the criticism and we have initiated some of that criticism. About mid-1982 I recall asking questions in this House specifically about a special employment incentives program to be administered through the Prime Minister's Office and with all the decisions to be made by key Liberal Senators-I named certain ones in Saskatchewan and British Columbia-which would obviously result in a patronage-ridden system to disburse taxpayers' largesse administered by the Government. We do not like that kind of thing. Nor do we like the type of allocations that are made without any appropriate consultation at the local level so that people in all walks of life can have some share in what makes sense in terms of investment, grant programs and developmental procedures.
It is interesting to look at the record of the Conservative Government, that short blip in 1979, when it wiped out local advisory boards. Then the Liberal Government reinstituted them and then it scrapped them again. The PCs will listen to them now. Now Members of Parliament must pay for them out of their own pockets. I do not mind doing that. I would rather pay money out of my own pocket to ensure we have good local input into that kind of decision making than, for the sake of saving a few days' time, relegate all authority to people in the bureaucracy who do not have a clear understanding of what the local needs and priorities are.
February 14, 1984

What is the Conservative attitude to job creation? We have it as reported in the Montreal Gazette for May 18, 1983. That is from their new Leader:
"Oh, there'll be jobs for Liberals and NDPers too," Mulroney said in New Brunswick recently, "but only after I've been prime minister for 15 years and I can't find a single living, breathing Tory to appoint."
There is the Tory job-creation policy. The Tories talk about patronage. But they will say their Leader was only appealing for votes then, and trying to get elected as leader. I suppose that is the explanation for that. Since we have not heard anything more about the Tory job-creation policy, this is all that stands. 1 would not call the Tories hypocrites. Of course we do not do that here. But there is something wrong when people at one time can stand in this Flouse and complain about patronage while having on the record at the same time that their job-creation programs will only be for Members of their own Party for a 15 years period. Hopefully we will never get the chance to suffer 15 years of Tory rule. If the Tories do in 15 years what their blood brothers and sisters have done in British Columbia for 29 out of the last 32 years, then this country will be even lower than it is today. It will be well below ground.
I want now to give an idea of just how serious the employment picture is. While we appreciate those programs which have allowed for the creation of some jobs in my area, albeit short-term ones, I want to refer to a few figures to show how serious the situation has been in my constituency. In the area of logging, in the period from 1980 to March 1983 we lost 310 jobs; in manufacturing and processing, 1,019 jobs; in mining, 407 jobs; in construction, 320 jobs; and in the retail and service sector, 350 jobs. None of these figures include staff reductions of businesses still in operation. These are just closures in a constituency which has the smallest population of any constituency in the Province of British Columbia and, as I said, with a 27 per cent unemployment rate today.
There have also been cutbacks by the provincial Government in Victoria in forestry, of all areas, which led to a higher percentage of terminations than in any other area in the province. We are a major forestry region, For some reason the Federal Government, in the same way as it hands out tax incentives and allowances without seeking any guarantees or without any supervision, also handed out funds for education and health to the provincial Government and allowed that gang in Victoria to eliminate an entire educational institution, getting rid of another 100 full-time jobs and the income generated by over 500 students. All these things are happening at once.
Is the Government surprised that we do not sound overly grateful because we have been successful in working with its officials to bring in a relatively large number of short-term job-creation projects?
I have not loaded my speech with statistics. There are many people to do that. The statistics are available. The Government has seem them. It saw them in the Carter report and in
Supply
numerous reports which it commissioned publicly and privately over a number of years. I would like to quote the Chairman of the Bank of Montreal who said:
All industry is awash in tax incentive now. There is so much unused capacity ... the last thing they are going to want is more capacity.
With a policy like that, surely it is time for members of the Government to realize that by handing out money by the barrel, without insisting upon results and insisting upon receiving value for the money expended, is not accomplishing anything. We must work to ensure that industry builds upon our strengths, not see it wiped out and then spend piddly amounts all over the place, trying to come up with research for new grand visions which we never know will work or not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert);: Are there any questions or comments? As no one wants to put any questions or make any comments, the Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bujold) on debate.

Order, please. The Hon. Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bujold).


Mr. Remi Bujold (Benaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate. First, I should like to answer my colleague for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) who was complaining a moment ago that the Government had abolished advisory committees for the selection of job creation programs. The explanation is very simple, Mr. Speaker: we on this side of the House would sooner allocate those funds to create permanent jobs rather than hire people or give money to some people who in all likelihood would emphasize regional input; our priority was job creation programs.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal specifically with the third paragraph of the motion introduced today which has to do with the allocation of job creation funds. We have been accused of partisanship. Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to go back a few years and mention briefly the economic problems experienced by all industrialized nations throughout the world, particularly those we had here in Canada. That is one of the factors which make it interesting to follow the gradual increase in the unemployment rate over the past five years. In 1979-80, for example, the Government of Canada set aside some $330 million for its various job creation programs. We allocated about $300 million in 1980-81 and about $340 million in 1981-82 when the economic situation took a turn for the worse throughout the world, particularly so in Canada. Our response in 1982-83 was to earmark close to $550 million for the many job creation programs all over Canada.
The year 1983-84 was bleaker still with respect to new jobs, lay-offs and severe unemployment throughout the country, so the Canadian Government-the Liberal Government- assumed its responsibilities by appropriating an unprecedented amount of about $1.5 billion to create jobs for Canadians.

February 14, 1984
Supply
For the past fifteen days or so, it has come as quite a surprise to hear our colleagues across the floor complain that the Government has allocated its job creation funds in a partisan fashion. It seems to me that they are afraid or quite simply naive to the point that they do not want to face reality and see for themselves just what has been happening.
A moment ago I referred to the amounts of money spent to create jobs. Well, that money was spent on the basis of unemployment figures. It stands to reason that the bulk of the money went to those regions of Canada where the unemployment rate was highest. As it happened, some of the funds went to many ridings represented by our Liberal colleagues, Mr. Speaker, precisely because those ridings had the highest number of job seekers in the country. I might give my region as an example-eastern Quebec and my riding of Bonaven-ture-Iles-de-la-Madeleine-where at certain times of the year, we had as much as 60 per cent of the labour force out of work.
No wonder therefore that we should get a lot of money to create jobs. Still, Mr. Speaker, I must point out that the then Minister of Employment and Immigration was very anxious to open up our job creation programs to as many people and organizations as possible, so he managed to streamline the twelve programs we had then into four new ones. We thought at the time that those programs should be made readily available to all and that the various local groups should find it easier to apply for those programs.
It has been realized over the last two weeks or so that most, if not all Canadians understand and endorse the amendments we made to our job creation programs, and especially that many groups could apply, except our friends opposite, our friends from both Opposition parties. To listen to them in this House for the past two weeks, one would think they alone in Canada have not understood the amendments we have made to these programs in order, as I said, to make them more readily available to the people, and easier to understand. No wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian people know exactly what the Opposition parties are up to, and that is why they were not elected in 1980. For that same reason, the people will not dare elect them at the next election, simply because they find so hard to understand the various job creation programs we are putting forward and want to make available to all.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, to put it briefly, these projects that we have streamlined into four are extremely simple and readily available. And they are extremely easy to administer. Whether it is Career-Access or Job Corps or again the NEED or the LEAP Program, these are all programs which ensure that people in high unemployment areas can apply and benefit from those funds.
Another important point has been raised this week and the week before to the effect that Hon. Members had not been
made aware of the various existing programs. I have before me, Mr. Speaker, letters sent to me as an elected representative, as a Member of Parliament, by the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Those letters were sent to all Members of this House. In January 1982, the 282 Members of this House received a letter from the Minister informing them about the Summer Canada Program. That information was made available to all Hon. Members opposite. In February 1983, Mr. Speaker, once more, the then Minister sent a letter to all Members of Parliament giving them all kinds of information on the Summer Canada Program.
In December 1983, once again, a letter was sent to all Members to inform them about the funds allocated to each constituency under the Canada Works projects.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, on December 30, 1983, the Minister of Employment and Immigration sent everyone of us various information on the Summer Canada Program for the whole country and for each constituency. How can we accept that those Members now complain they have not been informed of the various job creation programs? More questions should be raised, Mr. Speaker, and we should try to find out the true reasons why we are called to task today for having failed to provide the House with adequate information about our job-creation programs. While Members on this side of the House were protecting the interests of their constituents and fighting unemployment throughout the country, those people, especially the members of the Official Opposition, were fighting over their party leadership. That episode lasted for two or three months if not four. Therefore, it is not surprising that they did not have enough time to read letters from the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Afterwards, they organized a four-month leadership convention. Once again, it is not surprising that those people did not have time to read their mail. They travelled throughout the country, as it was pointed out earlier this year, to try and enroll young people as delegates to their convention. They went on arguing throughout the country to see what candidate they would support. How could they get around to read letters from the Minister of Employment and Immigration?
They would come late or at the last minute to sittings of committees and ask just a few questions to be able to show their constituents that they were dealing with unemployment. But that was not their main concern. They had more vital issues on their mind, that is their convention. After the convention, we thought that they would be at least in a position to look after their constituents and get acquainted with the various job-creation programs available.
I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) is probably the only Opposition member who has been able to understand and benefit from these projects, probably because he has somewhat withdrawn from this leadership squabble. He stayed on the sidelines and
February 14, 1984

has had the opportunity to study the proposals that were passed on to him and to benefit from these programs.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest one must face the facts and not try to deceive the Canadian people by implying that the government and the Liberal Party have tried to hide certain things from this House and from the people. Our job creation programs have been based on clear cut figures that cannot be misinterpreted throughout the country since they are published by Statistics Canada. Those figures show that unemployment is particularly high in some areas of this country, which have a greater need for job creation programs. And today, some Hon. Members would have us believe that we deliberately deceived the Canadian people because we have tried to alleviate the plight of people and to create jobs for the unemployed! Canadians will have to pass judgment during this coming year on the behaviour of these Hon. Members. They will be asked to decide who is right in this debate, this government who tries to alleviate the sufferings of some Canadians or Opposition Members who merely try to make political gains by making unfounded accusations.
In conclusion, I believe it is most important for us to realize that this government stands for the interests of the poor in this country. That has always made and will always make the reputation of the Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker. That is why we are the government and that is why we will stay in power in the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. It being 5:45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 62(9), to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of supply proceedings.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: All those opposed to the amendment will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
The question is on the main motion, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour please will say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall we dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe if you were to seek consent, the same vote that was taken on the amendment could also be recorded for this vote and be recorded in Hansard as a proper standing vote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House give its unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.			
It being 6.15	p.m. this House stands adjourned until two		
o'clock tomorrow afternoon pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).			
At 6.15 p.m.	the House adjourned,	without question put,	
pursuant to Standing Order.			
			13

Wednesday, February 15, 1984