1984-12-03

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques) moved: , seconded by Mr. Ouellet:
That this House regrets that, after less than three months in office, the Government is in growing disarray as demonstrated by its harmful, inadequately considered and irresponsible cuts in government services of importance to the economic and social development of the regions and of individual Canadians as well as by Ministers' apparent inability to manage their departments and their relations with the provinces and with the public.
He said: The Opposition motion you just read, Mr. Speaker, and you did so very well I may add, may seem unduly severe, condemning the Government for various measures taken since it came to power, during the three months it has been in office.
I, for one, do not think the motion is too severe, and I shall try to demonstrate that during the few minutes I am allowed.
This morning, I would like to show the House the dire results of the last three months, which have brought us a succession of cutbacks the magic word which, according to the Progressive Conservatives is supposed to be the cure for all our ills, but unfortunately, has brought no positive results and has managed to please no one.
In my comments, I also would like to mention the negative impact of several of these cutbacks on Canada's remote areas which, for the most part, are economically vulnerable and stand to suffer most from the budgetary cutbacks of this Government.
I shall also comment on the inability of some Ministers to manage their departments and finally, about the impression given that some Ministers are resorting to all kinds of tactics instead of dealing with the problems confronting Canadians.
1 shall also comment briefly on this Government's less than satisfactory record in its relations with the provinces of our Canadian federation.
Finally, I intend to prove that to this day, Canadians have not been able to benefit from a single measure introduced by
this Government. Canadians have been told to wait and that better days will come tomorrow. Meanwhile, cutbacks are the order of the day.
Suppose we consider the past three months. First of all, we have a Government that promised Canadians the earth, making about 338 promises during the election campaign, and that has now failed to come up with any concrete measures to keep those promises, a Government that, it must be said, was elected with a tremendous majority and now resembles an elephant that has been incapable of bringing forth so much as a mouse.
None of the promises the Government made are so much as starting to materialize, and the people who gave this Government a blank cheque are wondering how it is going to proceed to keep some of its promises.
Mr. Speaker, this is a Government that has resolutely turned its back on many of the ideas it was championing when its Members were crisscrossing the country during the election campaign, telling Canadians, for instance, that social programs would be protected, that it was a "sacred trust", as they said. Now nothing is certain. Cuts have been made in programs like housing which are certainly social in nature. We are not sure what this Government is going to do to the universality of social programs, and in the final instance, this so-called "sacred trust", which was one of the cornerstones of the Progressive Conservative program, may not be so sacred anymore.
This Government talked constantly about open government. They told Canadians: Get rid of the Liberals who put a veil of secrecy over everything. And where is this open government today? I will get back to that later. We have now reached a point where the Progressive Conservative Government, after promoting open government, is now keeping everything under wraps. Practically no announcements are made, and guidelines have been issued that have made public servants feel less free to communicate with the media and with Canadians in general.
Finally, we have here a political party that during the last election campaign made employment and job creation one of its main themes.
[DOT] (UIO)
We now find ourselves in a situation where funding for job creation programs has been slashed. As far as the jobs are concerned, we will get them next year, they have been promised for fiscal year 1985-86. I should think that most Canadi-

December 3, 1984
Supply
ans, particularly the unemployed, realize by now that the new Conservative government is like a balloon that burst, it did not simply deflate, it burst. The government appears to have a secret agenda, and that ought to worry all Canadians. What we already know is bad enough, but we are more concerned about what we do not know and will never know, since public servants can no longer speak as freely as they did before. In a nutshell, so far the government has given every indication of being totally confused, disoriented and unorganized. Let us hope it will soon get back on the right track.
The one thing we know for sure, Mr. Speaker, is that the government has decided to make drastic cutbacks in public outlays. Unfortunately, such cutbacks are bound to hurt and, for now, the outlook is not very promising for unemployed Canadians, nearly bankrupt farmers and small and medium-size businesses which had expected the new government to help them be more productive and more competitive. Those cutbacks are particularly distressing for young people, for example, because the new Conservative government had raised their hopes by promising to find jobs for them.
What kind of scenario have we had since the Conservative government took office, in the three months since it has taken over?
First, the Summer Canada job creation program for youths will not be funded next summer. That was one of the most constructive measure to create temporary employment needed by students during summer. No, Sir, that program no longer exists, it has been cancelled, as were others which gave young Canadians a fighting chance to retrain and try to land a job. Similar existing programs have also been shelved. That is a rather sad comment on a government whose priority was to create jobs. The way I see it, they are doing the exact opposite of what they had promised. And young people are not alone in this predicament, for cutbacks strike elsewhere. Let us take environment, for example. The Canadian Wildlife Service budget has been reduced considerably and this issue has been raised several times in the House by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), who usually sits to my immediate left, in questions to the Minister of Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier), but unfortunately they have remained unanswered.
And then, the budget of cultural organizations which have been the prime target of the new Conservative government. As we know, the CBC will have to do with $75 million less. What needs to be emphasized, Mr. Speaker, is that the $75 million cutback is for 1985-86 alone. It is not a $75 million reduction spread over the three-year Conservative mandate. In answer to one of my questions a few days ago, the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) did say that the smaller CBC budget for next year will be the starting point for the following budgets. In other words, we are looking at a $75 million cutback in each of the three years of the Conservative mandate-which, hopefully, will not be extended-or $225 million less for the CBC over a three-year period.
Hon. Members are aware as well that other government organizations-The National Film Board, the Canada Council, the CRTC and the National Arts Centre, four organizations which have had their overall budgets reduced by $10 million. Here again, of course, those $10 million are for the coming year, but since the Minister of Communications has confirmed that those cutbacks are likely to be a permanent fixture, we are in fact talking about $30 million less for those four organizations during the mandate of the government.
A word now about programs designed to promote social housing. Is there something more necessary in our society, something more helpful? For instance, residential rehabilitation, low rent housing, the survival and development of cooperative housing projects . . . the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation will have to manage with $47 million less. Needless to say, Hon. Members have been getting phone calls from people in every region of Canada who have a direct interest in social housing and who are deeply concerned about those cutbacks.
Cutbacks have also taken place in the field of health research. I have in my hand a list which comes from a well-known Canadian business newspaper but because it is in fine print and therefore it would take more time than I have available to me. Instead, I shall let my seatmate read it while I make my comments.
There were some very important programs designed to save money to individuals and to conserve Canadian oil supplies. For instance, as of next January 1 there will be a cutback in the Canadian Home Insulation Program as well as in the Oil Substitution Program which offered grants to assist homeowners in their conservation effort switching from an oil heating system to electricity, natural gas or other types of fuel. These were extremely useful programs in which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) decided in his wisdom that cuts and reductions should be made. In fact, these cuts will affect everyone especially middle income Canadians.
Moreover, the government will not stop there. It seems that more bad news are in store as a result of the announcement made by the Minister of Finance that further cuts should be expected in his budget, which is to be brought down either next spring or next June: the exact date has not been set yet. However, we already know that there will be more cuts. In other words, the worst is yet to come.
The worst is yet to come. What this Government has done, after promising jobs during the election, has been to start with several cuts in job creation programs and then promise a billion dollars in job creation. We do not know how that will be spent; we have no details so far. After having read the documents and listened to the Minister, we know that this billion dollars will be spent next year. In other words, job creation programs are now being cut. This will put more people out on
December 3, 1984

the street. People are being told to tighten their belts now and that they will get a job in a year from now. That is not being serious, especially for a Government elected on a job creation mandate.

The worst of it is the fact that the impact of these cuts will be felt in the regions, and this will occur in many fields, especially the field of culture which 1 mentioned earlier, the research activities of the Wildlife Service, and so on. Let us look at the CBC cuts, for instance. We already know that these will affect regional and local programming, which has always played second fiddle in any case. We are all aware that the bulk of CBC expenditures goes to major urban centres in Canada, such as Toronto and Montreal. Therefore, any cuts will greatly affect the regions.
The regions will also be affected by cuts being made in the area of transport. We already know that certain ferry services will be reduced or their schedules shortened for the winter months in the Maritimes, and we all know what is the situation in Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, which are isolated islands in need of such services. I find this absolutely awful, especially since the government certainly did not brag about taking such action during the election campaign when its representatives, led by the Prime Minister, went to the Atlantic Provinces and made 338 promises to the residents of that region.
Let us now examine the case of Quebec. The critic for the Treasury Board has already stated that those cuts will cost about $700 million to Quebec. The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) did refer to this during the oral question period and he is reviewing the issue. The people of Quebec will not be able to absorb the costs of these cutbacks. This is why one of the questions that we ask the government is this: Where can we find the money to replace these lost funds? And what I am asking myself is this: What will the 58 new Progressive Conservative Members from Quebec do to ensure that the economic position of Quebec is protected?
Will they let this Government slash to that extent the major grants and expenditures intended for Quebec that are now being cut? They are rather silent, except to applaud when their party's tenors rise in this House. I look forward to hearing what those Members, those new Members from Quebec, will do in defence of the people they represent.
One of the things that strike me most is the difficulty some ministers seem to experience in managing their departments and putting forward certain programs and proposals. It is not for lack of advice because each and every ministers' office has a "super executive assistant", a so-called political advisor who would be better named "political commissar", with a salary reaching up to $80,000 a year. Hence we would have thought that the ministers would be expertly advised, that their depart-
Supply
ments would be efficiently managed and that everything would run better than under the previous government, which the Conservatives are constantly criticizing. However, we cannot say this Government is any great shakes. With officials who can no longer communicate with the people, nor the media . . . We have seen the guidelines which require an official, when giving information, to be quoted by name. This is a pretty way of imposing the rule of silence. And they went to the trouble, Mr. Speaker, of having a press conference just for that in the Press Club across the street! Really it takes gall, under the guise of providing a new access to information, to put forward-in a clever way I must admit-guidelines designed to restrict the already restricted freedom of officials to give information to the media and the public.
Interestingly, maybe that was the reason why the Prime Minister last Friday went out of his way to have lunch in the Press Club. I saw him, I was there. It was probably in an attempt to bridge the chasm that the new Conservative Government has opened between itself and the media with those new guidelines. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if the Government were more open with the people, the Prime Minister would not have to resort to flirting with the media at the Press Club. It is not by having lunch there and being all smiles that he will manage to be in the best of terms with the media people. All they are asking for is clear information on the Government's intentions. If they get that, there will be no need to go and wheedle them. They will be satisfied with the Government. However, that does not seem to be forthcoming.
When information comes to the surface and gets to the public ear, it is because of errors. When, for instance, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) forgets a file in Winnipeg. Then we learn something of the Government's intentions, but this is by no means with the Finance Minister's agreement. Under a government that is committed to openness, we now have to rely on accidents in order to be informed of the Government's intentions. By accident, such as when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) sends out a cassette on which he had dictated in his office that we learn what is going to happen in Central America.
It certainly is not through well-established Government policy that we get information, but by accident. At times we get it at the wrong moment. We have a Solicitor General who gives out details of an investigation that is under way, and then rises in this House to say he never did so. One of my colleagues has already asked questions on that matter, and he will surely do so again. Then they volunteer information at the wrong moment and when people require information, they cannot make up their minds to say what they intend to do. I think I know why, Mr. Speaker; it is because these people have no clear idea of what they are going to do. They wonder how to go about implementing what they promised during the last election. And this is why they hide everything under the veil of secrecy.

Supply
I wonder, for instance, what will happen in the area of federal-provincial relations. I wonder whether the episode with the Manitoba Minister of Finance is just a sample. Our minister met his counterpart, the Manitoba Minister of Finance, to review the transfer formula. As I said earlier, by accident we heard that the Province of Manitoba would probably lose its $72 million in transfer payments. And better still, when that meeting was held, it was taped by someone in the Minister's Office. Can you imagine that? I suggest this government's manipulation of information is unacceptable and a source of great concern. I shall leave to some of my colleagues to examine in depth a number of its actions.
For now, I pause and urge my fellow Canadians to think it over and ask themselves whether this government, from the moment it assumed power and started to operate, has been delivering to them what they should rightfully expect. To me, the answer is a clear and resounding no. I urge them also to watch this government closely to make sure that it keeps its election promises and that it is truly addressing the problems we are faced with. In the meantime, I cannot help but be dissatisfied with this government, and that is why I have moved today this motion which at First sight might seem harsh but which will receive the support of many Hon. Members of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments on the speech of the Hon. Member?


Mr. Hudon:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) claimed at the beginning of his remarks that the government had made major and even drastic cuts in the social programs. He mentioned, among others, those in the area of social housing. Could he name the other social programs where cuts have been made?


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, in order to enumerate these programs, we must rely on the information provided by the Government. I must say that the information has been rather meagre. I indicated in my speech that one of our greatest difficulties with this Government is trying to find out what is going on. So far, in the long list of cuts which I have here, the only sure thing with regard to social programs is the $47 million cut in the area of housing. We are experiencing much difficulty trying to ascertain what is going to happen to the rest of them, although when we examine the total envelope which the Government has at its disposal, we realize that $4.2 billion must be cut and as the Government is already committed to cutting transfers both to individuals and the provinces in the area of established programs, it is operating in a sort of straight jacket, and if it wants to cut $4.2 billion, it will have start somewhere. We expect the Minister of Finance will provide us with full details ... I already have tons of informa-
December 3, 1984
tion in several areas, but I do not have quite as much in the social area. All I have so far concerns social housing. But I feel it is already significant.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there other questions or comments relating to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques?


Mr. Desjardins:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques referred in his motion to uneasy relations between this Government and the provinces. How does he see our relations with the Quebec Government?


Jacques Guilbault: When I said that the Government had rather peculiar relations with the provinces, it seemed clear enough to me. I imagine that the Hon. Member reads newspaper reports as much as I do and that he attends from time to time the oral question period. Can you imagine that Manitoba which is hardly one of the richest provinces in Canada since it receives substantial equalization payments, will probably-it is not a sure thing yet because negotiations are going on-have them reduced by $72 million.
As far as Quebec is concerned, how will the Prime Minister get along with Mr. Levesque? It is hard to tell, but you may be sure, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Levesque will come with a rather long shopping list. He will not be asking for peanuts. We will then find out if the honeymoon of a sort which the PQ and the Progressive Conservative Party have enjoyed since the last election will endure. Do not ask me how those talks will develop. One thing I know is that there are some rather hefty cuts in the Quebec programs and Mr. Levesque will not be arriving in Ottawa with a big smile on his face. How will things turn out? Everyone is anxious to know.
And if relations or rather talks with Quebec are handled as skilfully as with Manitoba, watch out for the Fireworks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any other comments or questions on the speech of the Hon. Member? If not, we shall resume debate.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to enter into this debate. By way of reference, after reading the motion of the Hon. Member opposite I was prompted to reflect that this Government regrets that, after less than three months in office, the Opposition is in growing disarray. One would have thought that such a small group of people could get their act together quickly but all we have seen is a rerun of the last election campaign.
The previous Prime Minister has suggested that if he had run he could have won. The Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien), or for Main Street or Bay Street, or wherever he is now from, suggested he could have done better. The present Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner) suggest-
December 3, 1984

ed that he had to run because there was no one else. So I believe it is fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that the disarray is basically over on the opposition side.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Do not include us!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You make the Liberals look good!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: With respect to comments made by the Lion. Member regarding what is bizarre, I suggest that perhaps one of the most bizarre relationships existing in this country is the relationship the federal Liberal Party has with the provincial Liberal Party in the Province of Quebec. I believe that all of us are enjoying the way that one is breaking down for the Hon. Member.

I am astonished when I see the obvious contradictions contained in the motion introduced by the Opposition. For instance, on the one hand this motion states that the government has been in office, for a short time, namely less than three months, and on the other hand, it accuses the same government of lacking judgment or of being in disarray. There is a contradiction in terms. After such a short time, it is improper to make this kind of accusation. Up to a point, it even reflects some disarray on the side of the Opposition.


Mr. Ouellet:: We should applaud the Hon. Member for his French.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I think you ought to applaud the translator.
Second, the motion seems to imply that Ministers are having a tough time in coming to grips with their departmental responsibilities. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that nothing could be farther from the truth. I can assure Hon. Members of this House that all Ministers of the Crown have a good grip on their responsibilities in their respective Departments. I believe it is fair to say that all Ministers and their staff have been taking a measured, intelligent, thorough and wide-ranging approach in becoming conversant with the issues and views of all those people concerned and in carrying out the mandate and programs of the various Departments.

The Ministers are not just satisfied to read their background material, they carry on consultations with experts in the private sector, businessmen and ordinary Canadians whose life and livelihood can be affected by Government programs. [English]
It is evident, Mr. Speaker, from the seating arrangements in this Chamber that this Government was elected with a strong nation-wide mandate for improvement and change. I point out that it is a mandate which does not stop at one provincial border. It is interesting that both opposition parties have mandates which stop at certain provincial borders. I feel it is important to demonstrate to the House that our mandate sweeps across the country.
Supply
While the process of change and improvement has begun with the Speech from the Throne and the economic statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the first evidence of change has been a carefully balanced and realistic approach to government. Our initial broadly-based expenditure review has a number of important objectives. First, it is aimed at promoting growth and employment. It attempts to treat all regions of the country as equitably as possible under the circumstances and at the same time ensure that those who are in need are not unduly affected. Government objectives honour existing commitments with provincial governments and others, and fulfil our pledges. A careful examination of the whole range of programs, subject to expenditure reduction and revenue recovery, clearly shows that these objectives have been met as fairly and humanely as possible in the time available.
I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that we are dealing with a global situation in trying to reduce government expenditures, yet it impacts differently on each riding of the Hon. Members of this House. For example, in my riding there has been a move by the Government to stop funding a scientific interpretation centre at the Wye Marsh. This is one of five interpretation centres across the country. I must admit, Sir, that I am receiving a great deal of mail from the people of my riding. However, I believe we must point out to the country- and I have pointed it out to my constituents-that there is a difference between the present Government and the former government in the way this is being done. There are five interpretation centres being shut down across Canada, and all of those centres are in Conservative ridings. The move was based upon the principle that the federal Government should get out of the interpretation business, that this should be handled by non-governmental organizations or by the provinces. The move taken by the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) has basically been accepted on the broad scale. In my riding there are some difficulties but we are receiving complete co-operation from the Minister of the Environment in looking at ways in which it could be taken over by non-governmental organizations. I feel that is the key. Perhaps we could put a user-pay concept to it rather than making it free. That is the kind of examination which is being conducted.
We are coming to this House with clean hands in that the decision was based on principle. It was not done in the way of the last government where there would be cuts in Tory ridings and initiatives in Liberal ridings based on pure politics. Our reductions are based on principle which makes it much easier for all Hon. Members of this House to support them.

Of course, people will be affected by these changes in the near or distant future and in various ways. However, it should be emphasized that the Progressive Conservative Party has made a commitment to reduce the deficit without bringing about a major increase in taxes.

December 3, 1984
Supply

The platform of our Party, Mr. Speaker, as clearly stated during the election campaign, is that the fundamental priority of a federal Government led by the Progressive Conservative Party would be to improve the way government works. [Translation]
If we consider the various types of reductions in expenditures, Mr. Speaker, we find that we shall be recovering $700 million by reducing general costs and implementing general restrictions. We have to put some order in our taxation system before asking our fellow citizens to take us on trust.
Our party also said that the primary purpose of a Progressive Conservative Government would be to give our Canadian unemployed their jobs back. We added, because there is no doubt in our mind about it, that job opportunities for our unemployed would improve only as a result of a lasting economic recovery.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to remind you that the previous Government was going to cut the funds allocated to direct job creation in 1985-86.
We are now building the necessary framework which will equally attract new investments and create new jobs.
We believe that we are establishing a climate of confidence which will be favourable to business and good for investment. We believe, Mr. Speaker, and the private sector seems to agree with us, that the Government is moving in the right direction both in its policies and its intentions.
We do not believe that everything should be done by the Government. Surely a reliance on a healthier private sector and an enduring economic recovery is the most advantageous regime under which Canada can thrive. Canadians from all ten provinces have placed an onerous charge on this Government to do just that and I believe the pools would indicate that Canadians are not disappointed by our progress so far. However, they expect more and I can assure them that they will not be disappointed.
I have pointed out the expenditure reductions that we have made. I suggest that the significance of those reductions should not be underestimated. We have identified some $4.2 billion in expenditure savings and revenue increases. This includes some $2.8 billion in spending reductions. We have used $1.4 billion of the gross savings for special initiatives which will help the economy get going again and take care of disadvantaged groups which have been adversely affected in the past.
Moreover, the remaining $2.8 billion will be applied to reduce the cash requirements of the Government. Of this, $2.2 billion is a direct contribution to reducing the deficit. In fact, this $2.2 billion is a downpayment on the deficit's reduction. More important than the mathematics of that downpayment is
the signal we are sending to the private sector, to our trading partners and to our investors, both foreign and domestic, that the Government is seriously committee to deficit reduction as a principal method of restoring sound economic health. The Government's Ministers have been travelling abroad to meet with foreign business people and investors to explain our Government's policies and direction. I would suggest that they have been favourably received.
It is not just Canada that understands the importance of coming to grips with the deficit and government spending. It is a realization that is world-wide. Canada, with its new Government and new mandate, is leading the way in coming to grips with that runaway deficit.
In combination with what we are trying to do to reduce the deficit, I would suggest to the House that we are committed to productivity improvement in the federal Public Service. That is not a new suggestion because the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) spoke at some length and in some depth about the issue before the election last September. The Prime Minister released a major position paper which addressed productivity improvement in detail, laying out our Party's intentions quite comprehensively.
I might say that earlier this morning I was the keynote speaker at the Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation's meetings which are being held in Ottawa. In a speech which I had prepared prior to assuming the position of Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, I dealt with the question of comprehensive auditing and the importance it could mean to productivity in the Public Service and in the Government. This morning I suggested that we on this side view comprehensive auditing as a management tool to help government examine policies. Policies must be developed by politicians and administered by public servants. We must have a method by which we examine that policy and ensure that taxpayers, whether at the municipal, provincial or federal level, are getting the best value for their dollar.
That is the mandate that is given to politicians at all levels. I can assure the House that the Government intends to do everything it can to further disciplines such as comprehensive auditing and to give the people the accountability that they deserve.
We produced a position paper called "Towards Productive Management-The P.C. Approach". We stated in that paper that it will be a top priority to implement changes in federal Government management techniques and processes to ensure that Canadian taxpayers receive value for money. We added that it is our goal to create a management philosophy in government which starts at the political level-a philosophy based on accountability, the appropriate delegation of authority and the encouragement of creative and efficient management within the Public Service.
We have already begun to move in that direction. We inherited rules and regulations-perhaps it is the nature of the beast-which are too many, too detailed and too universally applied to do the job. This was acknowledged last spring by the former President of the Treasury Board, the Hon. Member
December 3, 1984

for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). We intend to make significant improvements in this area.
The policies that we inherited do not provide for adequate flexibility for Departments to achieve real value for money in specific circumstances. There is much work to be done and it is work that we will do. Our goal is to shift from a reliance on regulations and controls and detailed procedures toward a greater reliance on managers' competence and the achievement of results. Our goal is to simplify government and let the managers manage.
If the Opposition is unsatisfied with the achievements to date in this area of simplification and rationalization, I can assure them that we have further plans to have a more extensive and more encompassing grass roots review of programs. That is under way. A committee chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) is continuing to review federal programs and regulations with a view to consolidation, simplification, ending duplication and improving the deliverance of important government services to the public.
The considerations are proceeding at the present time. The committee is undertaking to present its recommendations in the months ahead. The action to implement these recommendations will be preceded by an appropriate period of consultation with those who are substantially affected. Our Government believes in an applied approach to government expenditure reduction which allows sufficient time for those who are affected to adjust. As proof positive, I suggest to the House that there will be some reductions in the number of jobs in the Public Service but it will be done on a consultative basis. The consultations with the heads of the unions and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) had already started before the economic statement was released. It began with a very frank and friendly meeting between the President of the Treasury Board and the heads of the Public Service unions.
I want to assure the House that that is a process of consultation which the President of the Treasury Board started and which I know he intends to continue. We are committed not to act prematurely or precipitously on these issues.
That is why the review made and the results which were published are something that can be read and understood by the ordinary public and the ordinary politician. We did not slash "x" per cent across the board. There are specific programs that were cut out and the rationale for those reductions are explained.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that is evidence of this Government's intentions to act in a rationale way. I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this debate. 1 naturally think that the motion is perhaps not frivolous but very close to it. I am sure though that the Member who presented the motion did so in good faith. We have no hesitation in defending our policies and actions based on the mandate that was given to our Government on September 4. We look forward to a debate throughout the country and a consultation process that will
Supply
prove that our moves on behalf of Canadians, especially on behalf of the taxpayers, can be supported by the briefs and the reviews we have taken.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any questions or comments?


Mr. Nunziata:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member indicated that when his Party came to this House of Commons to form the government that it came to the House with clean hands. Since the Tories came to the House their hands have quickly become soiled, if not soiled, bloodied by breaching the many promises made.
Will the Hon. Member define the mandate his Government received? He spoke of the massive mandate which the Tories received from people coast to coast. Will he define what he means by the mandate his Party received? Does the Hon. Member not agree that the mandate received to govern was based on the some 300 odd promises made by the Tories during the election campaign? Will the Hon. Member not agree that it is incumbent upon the Government to fulfil those promises?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there were several questions included in the Hon. Member's comments. The only way we got our hands soiled once it came to office was when we moved out the furniture of the previous government.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: And some Hon. Members did not want to move.
Second, Canadians wanted a change of style and attitude. Canadians want a government that is more open and more accountable. That is why the Members opposite are so few in number. That did not happen to my colleagues in the New Democratic Party. People wanted a change in style. People had had a belly full of the way the Liberals operated.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: We in the NDP still have quality.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: It is said the Liberal Party has nowhere to go but up. I suggest to the Hon. Member who asked the question that he ought to look to his left because the Liberals could still go down one peg.
The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) made reference to the 300 promises. I am sure the Member watched our promises carefully. I have no difficulty with the objectives that we set before the Canadian people. We told them that we would work toward those goals. They do not expect us, given the mess we inherited from the Liberal Party, to solve the problems of the nation overnight. The Liberals had an awful lot of time to put those problems in place and it will take some time to solve them. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we are going about solving them and in due time we will be able to report to this House and to Canadians that progress has been made on every one.

December 3, 1984
Supply


Mr. Marchi:: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to participate in the debate but the Hon. Member did such a good job encouraging people on this side of the House that I shall. The Hon. Member mentioned that the electorate voted his Party in power because people wanted a change in style. Canadians did get a change in style, but not for the better. We have witnessed, over the last three months, a government that has been more centralized than any government in recent history. Ministers could not even choose their own staff. We have noticed a Government that has surrounded itself with secrecy. This is a Government that has expanded its staff of ministers without worrying about job creation outside of the House of Commons.
I come back to the Hon. Member's suggestion about the mandate given to the Tories by the people. The mandate was not one on cutting the deficit. 1 think though that spending should be done in an efficient and effective manner, and there would be no trouble in getting an agreement from all sides of the House on that. The Conservative Party was given a mandate to create jobs. From coast to coast we heard the Leader and his caucus saying "if you give us a mandate and elect us we will deliver on the jobs". It was not a mandate to deliver on cuts in programs affecting young people, senior citizens, in the area of science and technology or in the area of the environment. Those cuts were never mentioned during the campaign.
We got a promise to deliver jobs, thousands of jobs overnight. We have seen the cuts. We have read about them and we have heard about them. Where are the jobs?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should point out that I have no difficulty in encouraging Members on the other side of the House because so many of them are ours.
Having said that, I would say that the Member has no conception of what has to be done if we are ever to get the economy back in shape from the chaos left by his colleagues- many of his colleagues are not here now-there is in the Liberal Party. We all know that we have to reduce Government spending and that we must get the economic situation together if we are going to have the room to do what we want when it comes time to stimulate the economy. A lower deficit will strengthen the economy, give confidence to consumers, and confidence to investors both foreign and domestic. That will create the jobs about which the Hon. Member talks. It is self-evident. We campaigned on the theory that we would create jobs. Let me tell the Hon. Member not to worry. We will create lots of jobs, and possibly we will eliminate his.


Sergio Marchi: Just watch us. Is that what you are saying?


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the Hon. Member for his challenging and interesting job as the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Lewis). It is perhaps one of the least interesting for those who have over the years been trying to find out exactly what Treasury Board does to public servants. The Hon. Member referred to the possible cuts in the Public Service. He said that many consultations have been going on.
Could the Hon. Member give us the dates of these consultations? Between whom did they take place? Did the Minister meet with the Alliance? Did someone meet with the Professional Institute of the Public Service? Did the Minister meet, for example, with people from the Public Service Commission, the Commission responsible for lay-offs? Did they meet? If so, when? Perhaps we could obtain information from the gentleman as to the lay-off schedule? Who will be affected and in what manner?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, let me advise the Hon. Member that there is an axiom in law: never ask a question unless you know the answer. That axiom also applies in the House of Commons, something to which the Opposition has not yet quite caught on.
At eleven o'clock on the morning of November 8, the day the economic statement came down, I was present with the Minister at a meeting with at least 11 or 12 persons who were heads of Public Service unions, including Mr. Donegani. The Minister advised them as to the type of atmosphere we wanted to set, that consultation would be the name of the game, and that we wanted to monitor the process very closely with their co-operation.
I will undertake to give the names of those people to the Hon. Member.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I asked about the Public Service Commission.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I am sorry, but I am not familiar enough with all the players at this time to give the Hon. Member the answer now as to who exactly was present. That was one of the meetings. I am certainly pleased to tell him that I will relay those names to him, because there cannot be any secret that we met with someone.
That is the way in which we are operating. As far as lay-off notices are concerned, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) made it very clear that every effort would be made to re-employ people within the Public Service and that attrition would be the rationale used wherever possible so that people would be retained within the Public Service.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate this morning. It is important to begin by conceding that the point of the previous government speaker is quite accurate. There was a major change in the country on September 4. There was an expression of disgust and lack of confidence in the previous regime and there was a strong statement for change. With that statement of change was an expression of hope and optimism for the future.
By their nature Canadians are an optimistic and hopeful people. The political earthquake which took place on September 4 was an effort to regain some sense of that optimism and hope for the future. It was an optimism and hope deliberately sparked by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) during his election campaign when he made the rather remarkable boast or promise that on the very day after the election of his
December 3, 1984

Government there would be such a burst of new confidence by business in the future of the country that it would start to create tens of thousands of jobs. To some degree this sense of hope and optimism has survived within Canada for the first few months of this Government's regime. It is, not surprisingly, a honeymoon period.
When this session of Parliament began, in a sense the Throne Speech picked up many of the themes of the hopeful election campaign. It was a Throne Speech which talked about co-operation, consultation and a sensitivity to the needs and concerns of ordinary Canadians. Then the hopeful package began to unravel. As the package was opened, the Christmas present or the hopes began to look much different. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) came in with an economic statement. It was something like the grim reaper arriving at a birthday party. He came in with very harsh messages, as his files on Manitoba indicated. First we saw major cuts, not so much cuts to social programs which the Government was to study before looking at reducing, but cuts to a series of important economic areas of activity within the Government including the unemployment insurance system and the Industrial and Regional Development Program. Also there were cuts in a series of agencies and departments and in research and development activities, matters which are important to our economy five, ten and fifteen years down the road. There was a shift from the emphasis in the election campaign on tens of thousand of jobs to stress, instead, cutting the deficit.
To be fair, the Minister of Finance believes very strongly that the strategy he is bringing forward is one which will, by some magic message to investors, create jobs in the future. I do not think he believes that it is a deliberate attempt to keep hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of work. However, as an economist I have to say that in my view and the view of many economists in the country that is precisely what will happen. It is a misguided strategy, a strategy which has been tried in British Columbia, in Britain and in other parts of the world. In each case where the strategy of cut-backs, tax increases and leaving the re-energizing of the economy by magic to the private sector has been tried, the result has been a persistence of unemployment and of the deficit which the Minister says he is committed to reducing.
The reality is that we do not eliminate deficits by trying to cut government activity.


Mr. Nickerson:: You don't?


Steven W. Langdon: No, you don't. We eliminate deficits by getting the economy moving again.


Mr. Brisco:: How do you get the economy moving?


Steven W. Langdon: The only way to get the economy going again is by putting more money in people's pockets, not in companies' pockets. As a result people are put back to work and taxes flow back to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty). Then he will not need hundreds of new tax inspectors to go out and search for them. There would be a revival of the economy and through that a reduction in the deficit.
Supply
I predict, as sure as the flowers will come up next spring despite the change in weather about which the Conservatives talked last week, that we will see as a result of this strategy an increase in the Government's deficit. A year from now the Minister of Finance will be reporting back to the House that his estimates were wrong. Rather than a cut in the deficit next year, the deficit will be higher.
I ask the Conservative back-benchers and others who are here to think ahead and to remember this prediction. As an economist, I predict that just as it happened in British Columbia, Britain and country after country which adopted this effort to butcher the public sector, we will end up paying the price, not just in more unemployment but with a higher deficit as well.
A deeper issue is emerging. It is not only a question of how guided or misguided the economic strategy of the Government is because, in the last two weeks in particular, we have seen some deeper questions come on to the political agenda. These are questions about the very integrity and confidence of this Government.
I say that with sorrow. Nobody was happier than I to see the previous Government thrown out. Nobody was happier to see them reduced to 40 seats. I would have preferred a reduction to 28, but 40 will do for the moment.
We have to realize that the people of this country wanted a whole new style of government. The reason why that catastrophe hit the Liberal Party is because it had become a regime that had no sense of decency, integrity and being up front with the Canadian people. The Canadian people have lost their willingness to put confidence in these difficult times into a regime like that, so they made a change.
A regime has emerged in the last few weeks which in certain fundamental and crucial ways is picking up all of the worst habits of the previous government. It has picked up the enthusiasm for secrecy, for managing the news and trying to fool the Canadian society. This can be seen in cases like the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) refusing to release the results of the work of his officials on the Government's economic model and what will happen as a result of the cut-backs that have taken place.
This is not some kind of back alley piece of magical machinery in which nobody has confidence. This is a model of our economy built by governments over the years in which the Minister of Finance has great confidence. He has so much confidence that if you take the long term agenda for change by the Government, he uses that model to lay out what he thinks will happen to the economy in the future. The Minister of Finance refuses to release the results of that model as to what will happen as the result of the cuts in this next year. In doing so, incredibly, he states that he believes the model's results are wrong.
The Minister brought in a 130-page book based on the predictions of that model. He could put the model's results out for the next year and say that he thinks it may be mistaken

December 3, 1984
Supply
here and there. However, he refuses to release those results and blames it on the lack of effectiveness of the model. He used it in other pieces that he put out at the same time. That demonstrates a degree of inconsistency, a refusal to be up front with the Canadian people. Frankly, I find that staggering.
That was not the only gesture. The same Minister took a hard message to Manitoba in his memo, but refused strategically to tell Manitoba about that hard message. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) announced that there would be $175 million in cuts to his Ministry's programs of regional industrial development funds. He then got up in the House of Commons and tried to pretend that those cuts were not real, that there was no real significant change in the job creation that was going to be provided by IRDP next year.
It is an attempt to obscure what is taking place that is unworthy of this Government. I remind the Government that it represents 211 constituencies. It can afford to have a little bit of grace and self confidence. It can level with the Canadian people. It does not have its hard messages. It should send them out. Let us talk about them and look at them in detail.
We have the incredible picture of a Party which just two years ago said on a point of principle that for the sake of Parliament and Parliament's rights for future, it must not allow the Government to borrow for the next financial year. They said it was not right to borrow for the future without stating what is was going to do in the future. What does this Government do? It asks to borrow billions for the future. It does not even blush in doing so. At least the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) had the good grace to blush. He is prepared to admit that his job in Government is to demonstrate that the Government is not perfect. He could not have chosen a better job for himself.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: What is your job in the NDP?


Steven W. Langdon: My job in the NDP is to indicate the way in which this Government has lost track of its integrity so early in its regime. That sense of drift and loss of direction is something that I express not with partisan happiness or glee, but with a sense of sadness. The people of this country wanted a change. They wanted a decent new Government that would level with Canadians, a government that would be up front.
There is a bit of irony in this motion of non-confidence being moved by the Party next to me. Talking about blushing, it might be good for them to blush for a little while. For the future of our country, we as the opposition in this House have to bring this home to the Government of Canada. The Party across the aisle is the Government. It should have the self confidence to recognize that. We must bring home to it the message that the Canadian people want an open, honest, sensitive government that will consult and co-operate. If they do not get that from this Government, I hope they will turn to us in this party to give them that kind of Government in the future.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Any questions or comments on the Hon. Member's speech?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have one comment to make. The Hon. Member referred to the phrase "butcher the public sector". Perhaps the Hon. Member might explain that phrase to the House. There are some 300,000 Civil Service jobs in existence and the economic statement contemplates the reduction of 3,600 such jobs, but attrition in the public sector accounts for 13,000 jobs a year. I know that the phrase "butcher the public sector" has a very oratorical ring to it. Perhaps the Hon. Member might be able to back that statement up.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, unlike the Hon. Member, I feel that central to the public sector is what it does for people. I am referring to the services which are provided to Canadians across the country. The butchery I am speaking of is the kind of butchery that is taking away millions of dollars of grants which would otherwise support alternate energy research in the country, including the elimination through the National Research Council of its program of grants for energy research. It is the kind of butchery that is cutting back research and development in the environment sector in the same way that Ronald Reagan did in the United States. It is the kind of butchery which is taking $85 million from the CBC, an institution which in my constituency particularly is the only voice that we have to counter the overflow from the incredibly powerful communications industry in the United States.
I am referring to the kind of butchery that has told workers in the CDIC that the Government will sell their businesses without even consulting with them first. It is the kind of butchery that has taken a program like IRDP which was to have been given $150 million more next year for grants to small businesses across the country and cut that amount out. It is a butchery which deserves to be called a butchery because it has been done without thought and without consultation.
We can deal with case after case in which programs have been cut without allowing any opportunity for provinces, communities, workers or the people to have a say. We are talking about a Government that talks rhetorically. The Hon. Member has already mentioned rhetoric. The rhetoric of the Government regarding co-operation and consultation has been magnificent. However, the record of the Government as shown by these very cuts to which I have referred has been absolutely dismal.
I thank the Hon. Member for raising that question because I had not been able in my speech to deal with the specific cuts which have been so damaging. The butchery is there. It is serious and the Conservative Government will pay the political price for it.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, that answer was so unusual and so far from the point that I would like to thank the Hon. Member for it.
December 3, 1984


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting comeback. Rather than leave that dangling in Hansard and somehow suggesting that a contrary reply was made to a different question, let me remind the Hon. Member that he asked about butchery in the public sector.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Of the public sector.


Steven W. Langdon: I had provided the Hon. Member with a detailed list of this. This Hon. Member himself spoke a few moments ago about how the public sector was no longer to carry responsibility for certain services in his own constituency. He cannot describe that as being the public sector at that time and now turn around and say that the public sector consists only of public employment. We too are concerned about public employment but the public sector provides leadership in the country because of the services and help it provides to grant programs and through direct work with the private sector. It is an element of our economy which consists of far more than just the jobs that are involved within that sector.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there are no more questions or comments, we shall now resume debate.
[ Translation]
We shall continue the debate with the Hon. Member for Chambly.


Mr. Richard Grise (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with this first opportunity to speak to the House, especially since you are in the Chair and my father is celebrating his 76th birthday. I feel very privileged.
Mr. Speaker, I am also very pleased to be able to take part in this debate. However, I am surprised by the cynicism of the motion before the House today. This attitude can hardly be justified, considering the new Government has been less than three months in office. This Government is certainly capable of great achievements, but one can hardly expect it to remedy in three months a truly appalling legacy which has been nearly two decades in the making. This is just too much, Mr. Speaker. After all, we cannot work miracles. Canadians voted for change because they recognized threats to our economy. By voting for us in vast numbers, they demonstrated their dissatisfaction and discontent. They had had enough of the practices of the previous Government, something the Opposition seems to have trouble understanding today. Canadians want a new direction for this country, they want a change in policy and a new perspective on Government activities. That is the challenge we were given, and we intend to meet that challenge!
Canadians not only voted for change, they voted for decisive leadership. We shall not disappoint them. In fact, the Government has already started its economic renewal program. Canadians also want leadership that is attuned to their needs. We realize they do not want the kind of change that will disrupt their lives or that is lacking in compassion and understanding for those Canadians living in very difficult circum-
Supply
stances. Canadians across the country want to participate in the national decision-making process. They have had enough of decisions made without consideration for their needs. They want to co-operate and communicate more with their neighbours, both their next-door neighbours and those further away. They want relations between the federal Government and the Provinces to get off to a fresh start.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to stress an important aspect of this desire for change as expressed by Canadians on election day. Canadians want to be able to trust their Government again. That trust has been undermined in recent years by a Government that refused to consider the needs of Canadians and that gave us budgets like the one it brought down in November 1981. Governing this country is not a game, Mr. Speaker. To rebuild that trust, this Government intends to change the way the Government operates and the way it treats its citizens. I have elaborated on the significance of the outcome of the election because Opposition Members have failed to understand what Canadians need and are refusing to face up to the consequences we must live with today.
There was a massive vote for our party because our philosophy attracted voters and because it reflects the state of mind of Canadians today. The Government is not in disarray, Mr. Speaker. I has taken its bearings and changed a course that had been followed until September 1984. Unfortunately, some people refuse to accept this new direction and to look at new perspectives. They see only the old route, a route studded with rising government deficits, rising unemployment, uncertainty, a radical drop in foreign investment, briefly, a route that has brought this country to the brink of disaster.
We believe that today, our Government must set a priority on creating sufficient jobs for those people who are able and willing to work. To that end, we intend to focus our energies on getting the Canadian economy going again, so as to show Canada's true economic potential and reduce the federal debt, which by the end of the fiscal year is expected to be $190 billion. We also believe that the size and rapid growth of this debt is one of the vital issues we must deal with during the initial years of our mandate. A debt of 190 billion dollars! That is the legacy we received.
For years, the previous Government spent money it did not have. Successive budget deficits, from year to year, from decade to decade, have had grave consequences. The size of our public debt is putting pressure on interest rates, since it creates pessimism about inflationary trends. Servicing the national debt is responsible for 21.5 per cent of Government expenditures and constitutes a serious handicap for, and is probably the greatest obstacle to, economic growth. It means that our financial room for manoeuvring is seriously limited, since steadily increasing sums of money must be spent on interest payments, money which could otherwise have been put

December 3, 1984
Supply
to more productive use. Finally, the rate of growth of our public debt is a clear signal to Canadians and foreign investors alike that government accounts are mismanaged. It takes a minimum of logic to conclude that the problem is serious.
If I have enough time, I will have more to say about the steps taken by the government to come to grips with the problem of the rapid growth of the public debt. It is a fact that only sound tax management will renew confidence in Canada and lead businessmen to invest and open up new Canadian companies, something which is absolutely necessary if we are to solve the unemployment crisis.
Unfortunately, that is not the only problem facing us today.
We have to redefine the role of government if we expect it to provide a healthier climate for economic growth and job creation. These days, people rightfully look upon the state as an intruder, an obstacle which impedes change and innovation. That is why we must reconsider the basic role of government in society, wondering as we are whether certain activities can still be justified in 1984, including among others our participation in public enterprises, regulations, tax incentives, grants to bankrupt industries. We have to ask whether all those factors might not undermine the orderly operation of the market.
Although we do have reservations about the role of government in the nation's industrial affairs, Mr. Speaker, we are still very much in favour of social programs specially designed to help the needy. Still, even those programs will have to come under scrutiny in case they might be better and more efficiently oriented and implemented. We also want the business decision-making process left to the private sector, and we want to be able to meet the needs of Canadians with a minimum of government intervention, the dire consequences of which we are all too familiar with. We want to make Canada more attractive for Canadian and foreign investors alike.
That is our plan, Mr. Speaker. We will reduce the deficit's rate of growth, we will stop getting involved in areas where the private sector can perform favourably. We will stimulate Canadian and foreign investment in this country. We have already started implementing that plan, although we have only now been in office for three months. Who would dare say the Government is in total disarray? That disarray is nowhere but in the minds of people who are accusing us.
Last month, the Government addressed the problems of the nation by announcing in the Throne Speech the upcoming changes in orientation. It reviewed Canada's economic situation. It revealed the details of a plan of action and announced the first measures intended to reduce public expenditures.
Those measures were not taken rashly, Mr. Speaker, they stem from a concerted plan of action. We have examined one by one all the existing programs. While protecting the interests of taxpayers, our goal has been to look with a fresh mind at government expenditures and identify the areas where savings were possible. That review was done in a spirit of fairness, with a view to protecting as much as possible our needy fellow citizens. Also, we have divided those actions in such a way as not to burden any particular region or economic sector.
The program review, which was aimed at reducing the gap between expenditures and revenues, allowed us to eliminate those that were no longer essential, to lower the levels of expenditures, to tighten management and to postpone or cancel certain capital projects.
Further to that review, Mr. Speaker, the Government could announce a $4.2 billion reduction in financial requirements for 1985-86.
But the Government will not stop at that. Under the leadership of the Deputy Prime Minister, a task force has undertaken a more detailed review of the structure of the government programs, in order to merge and streamline them. This will result in a simpler, more understandable government that is more acceptable to Canadians, more efficient and more competent.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, the Government will not stop at that. It will keep on scrutinizing all federal expenditures. It will focus its efforts on current priorities and genuine requirements, to further reduce financial requirements. It will consult with the various groups in Canadian society on the whole gamut of issues it has raised in its economic renewal program.
As stated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in the detailed document submitted to the House, this consultation will be a flexible but in-depth process. It will not be an excuse to postpone decisions. The Government's commitment to consultation reflects the knowledge that only through the co-operation and determination of all Canadians to work together can the challenge of an economic renewal be met. That determination and that spirit do exist, I believe, Mr. Speaker. I have faith in a new departure, in the will to rebuild confidence and establish a new national consensus in order to fulfill Canada's economic potential.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions, comments. I now recognize the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the last comments of the Hon. Member and I have to admit I am somewhat confused because his statements are not consistent with those of his colleagues. For example, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) told us that he is making cuts here and there but the Hon. Member said that he is holding consultations here and there.
Considering all this, the Hon. Member could perhaps tell us whose advice was sought before the recent budget cuts and who was consulted before the cancellation of the 1986 census? I am particularly curious about this particular matter because several groups have contacted me, and I have received many phone calls and letters from ministers and other people stating that they had not been consulted.
In view of the fact that he seems to know otherwise .. . the Hon. Member could perhaps tell the House about such consultations, Mr. Speaker, because we have not yet had the oppor-
December 3, 1984

tunity to learn whom the government consulted before cancelling the 1986 census.


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) often travels to his constituency which is far enough, maybe 4 or 5 miles from here, but 1 travel every week to my constituency, Mr. Speaker, and I consult businessmen and various concerned individuals. As recently as yesterday morning, I met some 150 businessmen who were enthusiastic about the economic statement. Those businessmen are quite pleased to discuss and consult with their Member and to make suggestions. They are quite satisfied with the economic statement which has already allowed my constituency to experience a revival and reach a loud confidence in the economy which translates into new jobs.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member was not paying quite enough attention. I will have therefore to repeat my question, because he does not seem to have understood it well.
What I should like to ask, even at the risk of repeating myself... the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) can relax, I am not going to raise the Cumberland-Masson bridge issue again, I am going to ask him instead about the consultations he referred to in his speech. He said that the government had had and will continue to have consultations. Well, over the past few weeks, I have received a letter from the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and we have met their representatives, also some Indian groups and some federation of businessmen as well; we have had contacts with major corporations such as Sears. And I am sure the Hon. Member from the Progressive Conservative Party is very much interested in what major corporations think: each and everyone of them indicated that they had not been consulted.
Here again is my question, Mr. Speaker: Who has been consulted before the decision to cancel the 1986 census was made?


Richard Grisé: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Rus-sell's question may not have been clear, but I feel he certainly did not quite grasp the remark I made early to the effect that we are not miracle workers to put everything back in order in three months.


Mrs. Mailly:: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for Chambly (Mr. Grise) on his statement. I also want to tell him that, over the weekend, I participated in a radio program aimed at collecting funds for the needy at Christmas. It was pointed out many times during this program that nearly 30 per cent more money than last year had been collected and many participants were asked why they thought people were more generous this year. Their answer was, that, since the election of the Progressive Conservative Government, the public feels that responsible people are in office and that the problems will be solved. This was my experience this last weekend.
In addition, I was congratulated about the fact that, in reducing expenditures for the programs which were not can-
Supply
celled, we have tried to reduce administrative costs. I was asked to tell my colleagues that action taken to save money in some areas to be able to spend even more for job creation next winter was both responsible and commendable.
Therefore my colleague is right when he says that our Government is on the right track and that people are quite satisfied with the efforts made until now.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to remind you that, according to our rules, Members are entitled to ask questions to the Member who has just spoken. I listened very carefully to the comments made by the new Member and I do not believe that she asked a question. I therefore think that it would be a good thing if her comments were relevant to the speech we just heard and more along the lines of the comments made by the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise) whose maiden speech in this House was, I must admit, quite interesting.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have just one comment to make about the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet). I believe that the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) can make comments, which must however be relevant to the speech made by the Hon. Member for Chambly, without having to ask any questions. I did wonder about the relevancy of the first part of her comments, but I then realized that the second part could be considered relevant with the benefit of the doubt of course.

If there are no further questions or comments, we shall resume debate.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: All summer long, Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party was asking Canadians to vote for change. So, on September 4, Canadians voted for change.
"As soon as the Cabinet is sworn in, we are going to create tens of thousands of jobs". Who can ever forget this promise? And one month after the Government assumed power, it has eliminated thousands of jobs- and it is only the beginning. What a change, Mr. Speaker! They had promised a lean government-


An Hon. Member:: A lean government?


Alfonso Gagliano: -a less visible government. What have we got? The largest Cabinet in the history of our country, a government very visible indeed through the appointment of political commissars, a token reduction of salaries, a threefold increase in spending within the ministers' offices. What a change, Mr. Speaker!
All summer long, the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party who is now the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was giving new hope to our young people with his promises. One month later, he is cutting student loans pro-

December 3, 1984
Supply
grams and the Summer Youth Employment Program. Indeed, what a change!

Universality is a sacred trust and a month later he wants to start it. What a trust!

An open government, so much so that it had to issue guidelines to force Civil Servants to keep their mouths shut. What a change!

A government that will run this country in a business-like manner. First, the Government asked for authority to borrow billions of dollars without a Budget and without telling this new Parliament how the loan would be serviced. A businessman would not go to the bank and ask for a major loan without giving a projection of revenues and expenses. The bank would definitely not grant credit without having sufficient explanation. What a change!

When the Progressive Conservative Party was in opposition it considered too harsh the methods used by Revenue Canada to collect taxes. Now that the Conservatives are in power, the new Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty) says he will use all the means available to him to collect the $3.5 billion owed to the Canadian Treasury. Quite a change there also, Mr. Speaker.
During the election campaign, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who was then opposition leader, stated that job creation would be a top priority for a Progressive Conservative government. Today he is eliminating thousands of jobs to reduce the deficit. The Conservatives keep telling us they were unaware of the financial situation of the government. Yet in his first electoral speech, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) who was then the Right Hon. Prime Minister, had stated that he anticipated a higher deficit. But the Conservatives were not listening. They chose to ignore the deficit situation so they could promise the moon to Canadians, and the sun as well! What a deception it is for Canadians!
Canada wanted a change and got a two-faced Government.
[ Translation]
What a change! "Confidence talk".
They speak about restoring confidence among Canadians; they say that confidence will solve all our economic problems but the first thing they do as a new Government is to increase the sales tax they had criticized so strongly when in opposition. Are those the changes that the Right Hon. Prime Minister proposes to the Canadian people after a few weeks of suspense, Mr. Speaker . . . the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson)
has done his first hatchet job: Increase in the cost of gas, in unemployment insurance premiums, in transportation taxes and charges for services that the Government provides to its citizens. Many thousands of jobs will be lost as well.
If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote a few statements from the December issue of the magazine CGA-Canada, where the President of CGA-Canada- [English]
CGA-Canada President, Wilf Caplan said in commenting on the economic statement;
With unemployment still running at over 11 per cent, I am really afraid that cutting programs which relates into cutting jobs, may worsen the situation.

On November 8, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business submitted a brief to the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). I quote from page 8 of this report:
Consequences of the increase in unemployment insurance premiums.
According to a national survey made from January to March 1984, because of increases in unemployment insurance premiums:
Hiring of part-time rather than full-time employees, 15.8. Delayed hiring, 15.1. Lay-offs, 7.4. Replacement of workers by machines, 3.5. Total of the negative impact on employment, 41.8.
At the bottom of the same page, the CFIB says, and I quote:
According to our survey, small businesses must bear a heavier tax burden than large companies. Small businesses employing more manpower have to pay much larger social security contributions and indirect taxes comparatively to their profits.
In the same report, on page 13, Mr. Speaker, the CFIB says, and I quote:
Small businesses pay too many taxes comparatively to their profits because they employ much more manpower and consequently have more social security contributions. There is ample evidence that those contributions limit the natural tendency of small businesses to hire mostly young people, and to train them. We find interesting one of the recommendations made in the document of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, published on April 7, 1984, which is entitled "Major Findings and Recommendations, A Task Force on Technological Change and Manpower Training".
The recommendation is as follows: The contributions to the unemployment insurance fund should not be considered as an expenditure but as a tax credit so that the present inequality will be removed.
Mr. Speaker, just last week I put that question to the Minister of State (Small Businesses) who seemed to be surprised that his party had made such a recommendation. I am still waiting for an answer.
Our new Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has also introduced a new conservative vocabulary: consultation, co-operation and especially confidence. A few weeks later, we learned from a file he forgot in a meeting room that those words are meaningless.
December 3, 1984

Ele does not intend to seek any advice, because the decision is already made. He does not intend to co-operate because his decision is not advantageous for the provinces. He does not trust his provincial counterparts because he tapes their talks.
Mr. Speaker, we have never seen a government whose position has changed so dramatically and so soon after the election. Broken promises is all we have up to now for a policy of change.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot ignore the Conservative turn about. We have the right to insist in strong terms that the government should keep its promises, because it would be easy for any political party to make promises and then break them.
The Canadians have voted for change and the only change has been thousands of jobs cut off as soon as the tory government was sworn in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly).


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) whether he saw the following in The Globe and Mail of Saturday last, and I quote:

Yesterday's figures show that business investment did indeed pick up during the third quarter of the year, rising by 1.7 per cent from the April-June period. But Statscan said it is still 19 per cent below the level of business investment-
The article also stated however, that:
The Canadian economy has surged ahead with renewed vigor, handing the Progressive Conservative Government an unexpected Christmas bonus.
[ Translation]


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet read the Quorum. Having been in the House since this morning I am not aware of this report. However, I can tell you that the small business sector is now asking a lot of questions about the increase in gas prices and in unemployment insurance contributions, which are direct production costs. In addition, I imagine that the report to which she refers is the result of the action of a Liberal Government since it is a statistical report.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would recognize the Hon. Member for Chateauguay if he were in his seat. The Hon. Member for Chateauguay for a brief question or comment.


Mr. Lopez:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou. He has just referred to the fact that because of the Conservative Government unemployment has been created or many jobs have been lost; he did not specify the number, but he said that there were many.
I would now like him to tell the House which jobs were lost because of the Conservative Government.


Alfonso Gagliano: I said in my speech that as a result of the Government action thousand of jobs will be lost, and if the Hon. Member reads the economic statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), he will be able to realize this. I would therefore suggest that he should read the economic statement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of this House a new statement from the Aspen Institute International Group, which is composed of several former heads of state, foreign ministers, and distinguished citizens of many countries. The message is simple, realistic, and pragmatic.
There are specific recommendations for arms control talks, and a call for two new security channels. One would be a strategic panel composed of a small number of United States and Soviet representatives, who would hold high level confidential meetings to discuss and explore, but not negotiate, critical security issues. The second would be the establishment of a network of crisis control centres linking the capitals of states that possess nuclear weapons.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has repeatedly stated that the Government will work actively for peace and reduced tensions in the world. As a contribution to that discussion, as Chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence I am taking the liberty of sending each Member a copy of this new and, I think, important document.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Great Lakes are the largest freshwater body in the world. They supply water to millions of Canadians and Americans. The Canada-U.S. environmental study just released shows that 1.5 tonnes of potentially dangerous chemicals are



SECTORAL FREE TRADE-DEMAND FOR INFORMATION AND DEBATE

Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the reason for my rising today is to impress upon the Government the need to put before the House of Commons whatever positions have already been taken, or will be taken, by the Government regarding negotiations between Canada and the United States on sectoral free trade. There is a large body of opinion which has expressed grave concern about the possible consequences of entering into sectoral free trade. The question of whether or not it will impinge upon or infringe upon Canada's trade relations with other nations is a question which has to be looked at not only by the Government but also by the Parliament of Canada.
With this in mind, I ask that the Government seriously consider putting before this House all of the information presently in the hands of the Government regarding the current state of negotiations and, in addition, that the Government set aside time, perhaps in the early part of next year, for a discussion here in the House of Commons on the potential benefits and dangers of entering into sectoral free trade arrangements with the U.S. administration.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss a subject most dear to my heart, that of the Post Office. Recently I was privileged to receive correspondence from the President of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, Mr. Jean-Claude Parrot, in which he took issue with my remarks of last June about post office involvement with a commercial enterprise, especially the ill-fated fling with Consumers Distributing. Mr. Parrot claims that increased diversification within the post office, if you can imagine this, will increase productivity and create jobs. I say nonsense! I still feel that the mandate of the Post Office is clear-to deliver letters. Instead of trying to diversify, I would suggest that they try to streamline the existing operations. With the co-operation of union leaders, perhaps this process could be expedited.
At no time in our history, Mr. Speaker, has the need for more efficiency and productivity been more urgent. I therefore urge Mr. Warren to keep this in mind and give us better service for our 32 cents.



MULTICULTURALISM


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, in an editorial the prairie newspaper, The Link, boldly stated that in regard to a national multicultural policy "it is hard to say whether Brian Mulroney and his Government will live up to his promises." The paper was quite mild, Mr. Speaker. Mul-ticulturalism has been a low priority with the new Government. The Throne Speech was multiculturally bankrupt. The Government made no mention of a Multiculturalism Act. There was no mention of a separate standing committee, separate department, and no mention of a budgetary increase for the multiculturalism directorate. All of these were promises made druing and after the election campaign.
The Government has not apologized to the Japanese Canadian community, nor has it established a committee to examine a compensation strategy. However, the Government has undertaken to cut back immigration from 95,000 to
85,000.	It has also doubled and tripled citizenship application fees. Finally, it refuses to add a national voice to condemn the unfortunate, racially discriminatory practices presently raging in the taxi industry.
Canadians were promised a multicultural expressway, Mr. Speaker, one that would pave the way for equal opportunity and facilitate entry into the Canadian mainstream for all Canadians of all backgrounds. Instead we have witnessed a multicultural dead end, both unpaved and very winding, and lacking in direction. I urge the Government to take this national responsibility back to a road of prominence rather than a road of obscurity.



NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday in this House the Hon. Member for
December 3, 1984

Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) said the development of Soviet cruise missiles would be a major disruption of North American security. That is true. Of course the Soviet move is exactly what we in this Party foresaw two and a half years ago when that Hon. Member and his Government pushed ahead in helping the Americans develop the new generation cruise in the first place. The Member, his Party, and his Government refused to heed our advice and a similar call from the Canadian people.
Now the Hon. Member raises alarm about the cruise missile. Now the Hon. Member calls for a Soviet and American ban on cruise missile deployment, and calls on the Canadian Government to promote such a ban. Yet he does not call for an end to cruise missile testing in Canada. He wants Canada to seek a halt to cruise deployment while we proceed with plans to test the very same missiles next month. What does his Leader, the Liberal leader, say? He says Canada should test the cruise. Canada should help develop those very same weapons that pose a threat to our common security on the planet.
It is a good thing the Liberals have admitted they have nowhere to go but up. Based on their stand on the nuclear arms race, it is clear they will be in that position for some time. If the Liberals want to ban cruise missile deployment to strengthen our common security, let them start by calling for an end to cruise missile testing in Canada.



CHANGES TO COMMITTEE SYSTEM ADVOCATED

Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: 

FINANCE


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, once a new tax is brought into being it invariably remains, and is incorporated into the general tax system. Witness the temporary income tax originally imposed as a wartime emergency measure. Witness the Canadian Ownership Charge which is still with us even though its initial purpose no longer exists.
We hear, these days, considerable discussion about a value-added tax, commonly referred to as VAT, with the idea being that if this were to be imposed other taxes could be reduced. History and human nature tell us that this would not be the case. Inevitably we would end up with both the new VAT and the older taxes imposed at their former levels.
The idea of a value-added tax for Canada ought to be rejected out of hand, and the Government ought to concentrate on reducing and simplifying existing taxes which currently impose too heavy a burden on the tax-paying citizens of our nation.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my shock at the measures taken by certain authorities acting under the Solicitor General of Nova Scotia.
The names of 47 alleged prostitutes were recently posted on the public square, in Halifax more specifically, for the purpose of summoning those persons to appear on December 5, 1984 before the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia.
Personally, I view this as both degrading and discriminatory for the human beings involved. This is infringing upon personal rights and privacy, because those 47 persons should have been summoned individually, without their names being posted in a public place or published in a local newspaper. To several of them, this will be extremely prejudicial.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is one of the most progressive in the world. I hope that our society will feel it has a moral obligation to implement it and broaden it in such a way that no person's reputation will be tarnished in whatever context or situation.

December 3, 1984
Oral Questions
If that kind of posting ever happens again, I demand that the names of the clients of the alleged prostitutes be also published.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I find it rather ironic to make a statement about the pollution in the Niagara River and Lake Ontario Basin, following the statement made by the former Minister of the Environment (Mr. Caccia).
The Niagara River toxics Committee has once more identified many sources of toxic and organic waste, and points out that new chemicals have been discovered. However, the report went on to say that many old pollutants are still entering the river from already known municipal and industrial sources about which the former Minister of the Environment was aware. It is these issues that Environment Canada should address quickly.
The report states that further delays in the repair of the Niagare Falls, New York, waste water treatment plant are unacceptable. Waste disposal sites along the Niagara River are not being dealt with as expeditiously as possible. Known source pollutants should be required to enter into remedial measures as fast as possible. While 90 per cent of these contaminants originate on the American side, there are some Canadian source pollutants. The report cries out for action.
The Niagara River is the most closely monitored river in Canada. Pollution studies have gone on since the early 1950s. In order to reflect the awareness of an alert and responsive Government, Environment Canada should not take a reactionary stance but should take the lead now. The eyes of millions of Canadians are upon us.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
The newspaper Le Devoir reported on the weekend that the Prime Minister is prepared to recognize in the Canadian Constitution the distinct and specific character of Quebec's society. Could the Prime Minister inform the House how he intends to recognize the specific status of Quebec?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, obviously that was not a direct quote. I have the article here, but as far as I know, it is not a direct quote of something I said. Quebec does have a number of distinctive and quite different dimensions. Basically, it represents a francophone cultural and linguistic entity that must be recognized as such. It has always been my intention to try and create a climate that will make it possible for Quebec to sign the constitutional agreement with enthusiasm and with honour. That has always been the aim of this Government.


PROVINCIAL CONSULTATION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that report in Le Devoir apparently came from certain members of the Conservative caucus, and said that the Prime Minister was reported to have addressed his Members.
In any event, as a prelude to his forthcoming meeting with Premier Levesque, on Thursday, I believe, has he consulted with the Premiers of the other provinces in order to determine from them how far he could go in terms of their possible consent in addressing the hopes and ambitions of the people of the Province of Quebec as recognized through the Premier?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my visit with the Premier of Quebec next Wednesday or Thursday will be a courtesy visit, on my way to my riding of Manicouagan. I intend to see Mr. Levesque for a general discussion on various matters, both economic and otherwise, that are of interest to us as Quebecers and Canadians. If he wishes to make any further proposals, I shall be delighted to give them careful study and to inform the House accordingly at the appropriate time. For the time being, this is just a normal meeting between the duly elected Premier of Quebec and the duly elected Prime Minister of Canada.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT PLANS TO GIVE RIGHT OF VETO TO QUEBEC
John Napier Turner: Would the Prime Minister be prepared to grant a veto right if the question were asked by Mr. Levesque?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Well, this is similar to what the Hon. Member, your Quebec lieutenant, wanted to do during the election campaign. In the weekend press I saw that the Premier of Quebec was not necessarily seeking a veto right and that he might wish to discuss other alternatives, and I will be there to listen. We are of course aware of the new factor in the constitutional area as a result of the new constitutional amending formula by which the central government is bound. That being said, I shall listen carefully to what the Premier has to say.
December 3, 1984


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT READY TO START IMMEDIATE NEGOTIATIONS WITH QUEBEC
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Mlaurice):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Two weeks ago in Toronto, the Prime Minister told media representatives that he had no intention of holding constitutional negotiations before the next election. Is the Prime Minister now in a position to tell us whether he is prepared to have immediate constitutional negotiations with Quebec?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The economic recovery has always been my priority. Every effort of the central government will be aimed at Canada's economic recovery, including Quebec's. Naturally, I cannot prevent the premier of a province from raising another issue with me, and should the Quebec government do so through its premier, you will undoubtedly agree with me that it would be quite proper for me to consider and analyze carefully such a request.


RIGHT OF QUEBEC VETO-POSITION OF OTHER PROVINCES
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
Did he seek the opinion of other premiers on that issue, considering that there were only a few diverging opinions between the provinces, the federal Government and the Quebec government when the constitutional agreement was signed? Would the Prime Minister be in favour of reconsidering the possibility of giving Quebec the right of veto? Most provinces were willing to do so at the time, when the Ontario government decided to drop its right and let Quebec alone have the right of veto, and only a few provinces had raised objections. Since those provinces are now led by governments whose political views are the same as those of the Right Hon. Prime Minister, is it his intention to apply pressure so that those provinces will agree to give Quebec the right of veto, as we had recommended at the outset?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what requests will be made or what positions will be taken by the Quebec government. But I can say without hesitation or ambiguity that the new Government will take every reasonable approach to create a climate which will enable the National Assembly of Quebec to sign and endorse a constitutional agreement under which Quebec would indeed, and in every respect, be an integral part of Canada.
Oral Questions


AUDITOR GENERAL
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In August the Prime Minister indicated very clearly that he believed the Auditor General of Canada ought to have complete access to the documents that he wanted to see concerning Petro-Canada's takeover of Petrofina. At that time the Prime Minister said:
The Auditor General doesn't work for the Government of Canada. He works for the Parliament of Canada . .. he's got to be able to look at those books.
The Prime Minister was right in August when he was campaigning. Why has he changed his mind now that he is Prime Minister?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I have not changed my mind at all, Mr. Speaker. We have been trying to find a formula that would provide the Auditor General with all of the information that he seeks. It appears that previous documents of Cabinet, confidences of Cabinet, because of constitutional convention and custom could not be made available to the Auditor General, and every other means was made available to him to have the information that he requires. It appears, however, as the days go on, that what is emerging is a conflict between Parliament and the executive. I stand fully for the rights of Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: As a consequence, I will be asking my friend, the former Leader of the Government, as a Member of the Privy Council, and the Leader of the New Democratic Party, to meet with me to find a means which will satisfy the requirements of constitutional convention, but provide the Auditor General of Canada with all of the information he requires.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does not need that meeting. He has our agreement right now.


John Napier Turner: Right now.


John Edward Broadbent: We, too, stand for Parliament's interest in this matter. We remind the Prime Minister that the Auditor General is responsible to the Parliament of Canada, as he knew in August. To deal with the substance which the Prime Minister has raised, considering that the specific documents which the Auditor General has requested are being denied because he has maintained, as a decision, an earlier Liberal Cabinet minute decision, and considering that similar documents on other related matters, not concerning Petro-Canada but other Treasury Board submissions, have already been

Oral Questions
made available in the past, so there is Cabinet precedent, I come back with my question to the Prime Minister. When he talked as he did in August in full knowledge of the constitutional traditions of this Parliament, of Cabinet government, and said that the Auditor General's right to these documents ought to be implemented, I repeat, why did he change his mind when he became Prime Minister?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The answer is I have not changed my mind at all, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I was confronted with constitutional advice that was given, and opinions conveyed by the former Government to the Auditor General, and I will acknowledge readily that, in attempting to defend the constitutional principle, it appears there is conflict emerging between that principle and the right of Parliament to know. 1 am on the side of Parliament having all of that information.
Because of the delicacy of it, but with a view to obtaining an urgent resolution of this matter, I am suggesting that the former Leader of the Government as a Privy Councillor, and the Leader of the New Democratic Party, meet with me on an urgent basis to devise a formula which will be respectful of the constitutional tradition but which will ensure that the Auditor General gets all of the facts in this case so that he can make a determination as to its propriety.


CONSTITUTIONAL TRADITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I thought just for a moment that the Prime Minister was going to say: "The devil made me do it". He did not go quite that far.


An Hon. Member:: Not yet.


John Edward Broadbent: Would he, as Prime Minister, please explain to the House which precise constitutional practice or tradition would be violated if he decided to make available the specific documentation which the Auditor General has requested? Would he tell the House what tradition would be violated?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is that over the course of Canadian history Cabinet discussions have remained confidential-


John Edward Broadbent: He did not want that.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -I am trying to answer the question-so as to ensure the full flow of debate within the Cabinet chamber. This debate is captured in Cabinet minutes and records of decision which are there. Most Ministers over the history of the country have participated in the knowledge that they were bound by Cabinet secrecy and that these documents would remain privileged. It was with a view to protecting that privilege of people who went before us in the ministry that I have taken a hard look at this. I can understand the reasons for that. It is important that Cabinet function in that manner.
But because of the conflict of the Auditor General seeking information, I look to my hon. friend as a Privy Councillor, and to a former Leader of the Government, in the certain knowledge that by putting our three heads together we can come up with a formula that, as I say, will be respectful of that tradition but which will provide the Auditor General with all the information he needs to pass a value judgment on the propriety of a commercial transaction.
I am not trying to hide a single thing. We were not involved, directly or indirectly, in the Petro-Canada transactions. We are just here trying to provide the Auditor General with the truth, and the whole truth. That is what we are up to.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[DOT] * *


THE ECONOMY
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Ailmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. According to this morning's edition of The Globe and Mail that paper has a leaked Conservative report of an internal task force on employment which states, among other pessimistic declarations:
We found very little reason to be confident that we will solve the unemployment dilemma we face in the near future.
In the Minister's financial statement of November 8 he stated:
Unemployment will come down only as U.S. interest rates fall, and at best will average 9 per cent for the rest of the decade.
Mr. Speaker:: Does the Member have a question, please?


Mr. Ailmand:: Despite all the rhetoric with respect to unemployment during the campaign, are the Minister and the Conservative Party now telling the Canadian people that they have no specific plans to create employment other than to reduce the deficit and to leave everything to the private sector? Are these two pessimistic documents their only plans to create jobs?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: It is not unanimous.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Maybe the next time it will be unanimous. If the Hon. Member would look at the discussion paper attached to the economic statement of three weeks ago, he would see that a very broad change of direction is signalled by the Government. It will free up the economy, the obstacles to growth and the regulatory malaise which have slowed down the economy. It will be a major impetus to the
December 3, 1984

economy and will create far more jobs than the direct job creation which this individual Member seeks; those jobs are not permanent, they do not satisfy the needs of the economy.


REQUEST THAT CONSERVATIVE PARTY REPORT BE TABLED
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): The Hon. Minister's Leader stated to the House a few minutes ago that he believed in the right of Parliament to decide and determine things. Mr. Speaker, will the Minister be willing to table the internal task force report of the Conservative Party which seems to have a lot of input into the policy making process of the Government? Will he be willing to table it and refer it to the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration so that all Members of the House can review it and be more privy to the Government's plans for employment?
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the document to which the Hon. Member refers was the subject of an extensive press conference back in early April of this year. Large portions of that document were discussed at that time. I believe they were also discussed in committee at the time. I do not believe that what the Hon. Member wants will add anything to the knowledge of the committee. I suggest that he read the agenda paper to have a better understanding than he does now of the directions which the Government will be following.


AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that Auditor General Dye has labelled government arguments that Cabinet minutes are confidential and cannot be divulged as a "red herring", and that the Auditor General has had Cabinet information in the past, why is the Prime Minister stonewalling in the particular case of Petrofina and Petro-Canada?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer this question as the Minister responsible for the issue. The Prime Minister asked several weeks ago to look into giving the Auditor General everything the law allowed, that means everything except private documents. In checking with my Department I have learned that, in fact, the Auditor General has received everything the law allows, that is, everything but Cabinet documents. I would be glad to table the list of the material supplied to him.
Unfortunately the Auditor General wants from me what the law does not permit me to give, that is, access to other Cabinet Ministers' material. They are not my memoirs.


Ms. Copps:: Memoirs!
Oral Questions


Pat Carney: In order to resolve this with the Auditor General, I have discussed with him whether he is willing to participate in an independent review for which I have commissioned chartered accountants. As the Prime Minister indicated, there are also parliamentary methods of going about this. I will be meeting Mr. Dye on Thursday to discuss further with him how we can accommodate his request without my breaking the law.


LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question is simple. Will the Minister please tell me what law she is talking about?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, we are advised as Ministers of the Crown by our legal advisers that we are not permitted access to the Cabinet documents of our predecessors. I would love to go rummaging around.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: I would dearly love to do that, but I am advised that that is not open to me, and that in future, anything in which I participate in Cabinet would not be available to people who follow me. That is the situation with which I am faced.


BANKS AND BANKING
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He will know that Canadian banks continue to reel in magnificent profits and at the same time are turning away people who go to them to cash their welfare cheques. This leaves these people in the hands of a new breed of store-front bank sharks. Will the Minister tell Canadian banks to stop this scurrilous treatment of disadvantaged Canadians? Will he tell them that they are in business to serve all Canadians, rich and poor alike?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the practice which the Hon. Member discusses in the House today. I would be happy if he raises it with me and I will get back to him with a specific answer.


EXISTENCE OF CHEQUE DISCOUNTERS
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, there is a new breed of store-front bank sharks who are setting up to cash cheques which the banks will not cash, and they are charging up to 6 per cent for that. Will the Minister do something about this rip-off? Will he set up a patrol of these bank sharks?

December 3, 1984
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to take the Hon. Member's representation under advisement.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the status of women. It concerns his meeting tomorrow with provincial Ministers. Since aggressive federal action is essential to set an example for the provinces if women are ever to achieve true economic equality, what specific actions has the Minister recommended to Cabinet to enforce the Abella Commission recommendations, particularly regarding employment equity and equal pay for work of equal value?


Hon. Walter McLean (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, indicated that she intends to bring very early to Cabinet an outline for discussion in order that as a Government we might address the issues concerned. Tomorrow's meeting of which the Hon. Member speaks is a meeting to address two important issues. One interfaces with the Abella Commission and concerns the impact of the First Ministers' meeting and economic issues relating to opportunities for women. In that discussion I will be interested to hear the observations of provincial Ministers on the Abella report.


MANITOBA DAY CARE LEGISLATION
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, since accessible and affordable child care is a prerequisite for equality, has the Minister studied the Manitoba proposal for a Canada Day Care Act? Will he recommend this model Act for consideration by both provincial and federal Governments?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that the issue of day care is one which has seized all Canadians, but its delivery is primarily a responsibility of provincial Governments. At the moment we have a federal task force which is reviewing the matter. One of my purposes in meeting with the Ministers responsible is to receive their recommendations on how the task force the House will establish can have maximum acceptability by provincial Governments. Those recommendations will then go to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and his colleagues for implementation.


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. In view of another tragic killing over the weekend, and fully appreciating the priority of economic matters which, frankly, will always be with us, would the Prime Minister have the Government House Leader meet with other House Leaders to discuss and define the time and manner of a debate on capital punishment, as a result of public interest in this matter?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in other circumstances, I hope that during the life of this Parliament there will be an occasion for Members to consider this and other matters. However, for the moment I think the priority of the country and of Members of the House is devoted toward economic renewal and economic recovery. Until the economy is in better health and we can see some light at the end of the tunnel, I think Hon. Members would want me to stay on that course.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TOURISM
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Tourism. In his absence I will direct it to the Minister of Regional and Economic Expansion. The Government has decided to eliminate tourism funds under the Industrial and Regional Development Program. Until recently, this program provided valuable funds for tourism development. Why has the Government cut the tourism industry from this program, and why has it done so before having signed tourism subsidiary agreements with all of the provinces?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, in the latter part of his question, partly answered his own question. We believe we can give suitable assistance to the tourist industry through IRDA types of agreements and subagreements. Second, we believe there are better ways of helping the industry than the traditional IRDP approach to which the Hon. Member has referred.


CONSULTATION WITH INDUSTRY
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister advise if there was consultation with the tourism industry before these cuts were announced and made?
December 3, 1984


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will be pleased to learn that we are in constant touch with the tourist industry.


AUDITOR GENERAL
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Section 13(1) of the Auditor General Act states:
-the Auditor General is entitled to free access at all convenient times to information that relates to the fulfillment of his responsibilities-
Why is that access being denied?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the access is not being denied. I think the Hon. Member knows that. The Hon. Member quite understands the fact that there is this tradition of privilege that is associated with documents involving Cabinet deliberations.
We have only been here two months. I am not trying to protect anything that I or my colleagues have said. We are trying to be respectful of that tradition. I was delighted to hear my right hon. friend indicate that he would be ready at any time to meet and agree upon a formula that would allow unfettered access to the Auditor General within certain obvious constraints. I take it as an article of faith that the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and perhaps the Leader of the Opposition, will meet with me as soon as possible and we will help the Auditor General get on with his job.


LEGISLATION QUERY
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister aware that the same section I just quoted states: "Except as provided by any other Act of Parliament the Auditor General is entitled to free access-"? What Act of Parliament is there that denies the Auditor General the access he seeks?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am not debating legal niceties with my friend today. There is a constant uninterrupted current of legal advice which buttresses the view that I have, with some reluctance I might say, been defending here.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Why don't you fire your lawyer?


Martin Brian Mulroney: You were fired a long time ago.
We could do a lot better and satisfy the requirements of Canadians if the former Minister of Energy and his predecessor appeared before a committee of this House and answered all the questions of the Auditor General. They have the answers. We are going to find a formula that will allow the Auditor General, on behalf of all Canadians, to get the truth. I hope the Hon. Member will help us in that.
Oral Questions


INDUSTRIAL AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion on the application of the provisions of the Industrial and Regional Development Act respecting tier classification. Simply stated, a depressed area will be denied benefits if that community is included in a census district that in other areas has high employment and industrial activity. Will the Minister review the statutory requirement respecting the use of census districts for tier classification? One solution would be to allow the use of subdivisions of census districts to establish economic need in a particular community.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will be pleased to know that we have under review the classifications to which he is referring. In the instance he is specifically concerned with involving his own constituency, he will be pleased to know that on Friday I discussed his situation with the local officials and got an update on what is in fact the problem.


HOUSING
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for housing. In committee last week the Minister said he was lowering the amount of money available for RRAP funding to families earning $13,000 a year or less. Does the Minister feel this measure of cut-back is appropriate at a time when the most recent CMHC annual report states that one million Canadians had identified their dwellings to be in a state of major disrepair?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry if the Hon. Member misunderstood what was said in committee last week. I recall saying in committee that 50 per cent of the monies now applicable under RRAP go to those families earning less than $13,000 a year. I stated that this would continue, even with the lowering of the amount of money available in the total aspect of RRAP. Our concept is to provide, within the fiscal framework that we have, to those most in need when it comes to housing.


ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister is stating, as he stated in committee, that he is considering lowering the eligibility to those families, he will be restricting families-

December 3, 1984
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member put her supplementary question, please?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Does the Minister realize that lowering the ceiling to $13,000 will destroy the accessibility to social housing and rehabilitation funds by Canadians, many of whom at an $8,000 higher figure still live below the poverty line in Canada?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, does the Hon. Member feel that more money should be allocated to those earning $23,000 rather than to families headed by individuals who only earn $13,000? It is a priority of this Government to provide, within the scarce amount of funds available, to those individuals most in need. I am sure the Hon. Member will agree that families earning $13,000 are more in need than those who are earning $23,000.


UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I am sure he is aware that Britain wants to withdraw from UNESCO. On "As It Happens" last Thursday, the Canadian Ambassador to UNESTO, Ian Clark, was asked if he had been notified by Ottawa of a joint Commonwealth appeal to Britain to stay in UNESCO. Does the Prime Minister feel that Ambassador Clark was following the Prime Minister's new guidelines for public servants when he replied, according to the transcript: "Now, Miss Gray, you can't ask me a question like that"?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we Clarks have to stay together. The Government of Canada is very deeply concerned about the progress of reform in UNESCO. We do not intend to follow the British action and signal an intention to withdraw from UNESCO. We are, however, going to ensure that there is a more speedy progress toward reform which will not only strengthen that agency but could strengthen all of the United Nations system.


QUESTION PUT TO AMBASSADOR
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the question was not answered. I simply want to ask, either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs, why Ambassador Clark was not allowed to answer a factual question like that. Why could he not answer? Was it because of the restrictive guidelines?


Charles Joseph Clark: No, Mr. Speaker, it was not.


VENTURE OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT-MOBIL OIL COST ESTIMATE
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Mobil Oil has estimated that it will cost approximately $3 billion to bring the Venture gas onshore. How much does the Government estimate it will take to bring this gas on shore?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the Hon. Member that we cannot make that kind of estimate because we are not interventionists. We do not dictate to the company how it should develop the natural gas reserves. However, I am discussing the Venture project with Mobil, and at this point there seems to be every indication that that project is moving along very well. We look forward to the announcement of new sales contracts that will be made shortly.


DEPARTMENTAL STUDY
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Can the Minister confirm that his Department in fact commissioned a study on the production of Venture gas and that that study states that the cost of bringing the gas onshore is considerably less than Mobil estimates, and in fact may be as little as $1.5 billion?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I am not aware of such a study. I will ask if there is such a study, and I will be in touch with the Hon. Member in due course.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
Since, during the election campaign, the Conservative Party advocated more co-operation between the government and the public servants, could the Minister explain why the extension of the Canada Labour Code to health and security in the Public Service has been deferred for a period of 18 months without any consultation with the unions representing the Public Service?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, because the responsibility of implementing that Code rests
December 3, 1984

with the Minister of Labour, I would like to reply to the Hon. Member's question as I replied on Friday. There is a need for consultation during the drafting of the regulations that will be implemented to reflect the views and wishes of the legislation, and it requires that amount of time. The Hon. Member knows that at present there are occupational health and safety provisions for public servants.


PUBLIC SERVICE REACTION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware that the drafting of these regulations in the Province of Ontario took only nine months after the passage of Bill 70, and that it would have taken until March, 1985, if the same calendar had been followed here? Is the Minister aware to what degree his arbitrary decision, made without advance consultation, has shocked the Public Service and jeopardized the chances of a co-operative relationship with the Government of Canada?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I find the Hon. Member's expressions of shock to go further than I would like to see them go. It is very apparent that I have offered, to the Hon. Member and to his colleagues, consultations with my officials in the spirit of open government so that they will understand the necessity of drafting regulations that are consistent with the wishes of the employer and the employees, so that when those regulations, are implemented they will be implemented with knowledge and everyone will have had an opportunity to have had some input into those regulations.


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I have in my hand a cheque for $1,760 made out to the Ethiopian Relief Fund, which was presented to me by a constituent who won a trip for two to Hawaii. This compass-sionate constituent felt that the Ethiopian hunger would be better helped by the money than-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have a question?


Jack Scowen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister assure the Canadian people that the Government is doing everything possible to see that every dollar donated is being spent on food for the hungry?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased not only to be able to give that assurance but to thank the Hon. Member for Mackenzie for bringing to the attention of the House of Commons one more instance of the extraordinary generosity of Canadians in response to the famine in Africa. I can offer the
Oral Questions
assurance to all Members, and to all interested Canadians, that the need continues and that the delivery system is as effective as we can expect under the circumstances. I am sure I speak for all members of the House of Commons in encouraging individual Canadians to continue their most generous contributions in response to the famine in Africa.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
As reported in Hansard of November 26, the Prime Minister stated, and I quote:

We do intend to proceed without undue delay with some appointments within the National Capital Commission and to depoliticize it-

Last weekend, a well known personality in Ottawa's political circles and active supporter of the Progressive Conservative Party was awarded an Oscar of a sort by the Prime Minister when he appointed her Chairperson of the National Capital Commission. My question is this: Was the Prime Minister really sincere when he stated last week that he meant to depoliticize appointments, especially those made to the National Capital Commission?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am quite surprised by the Hon. Member's question. For the first time an exceptional and extraordinary woman has been appointed to chair this important commission, and we are looking for other women with similar qualifications to carry out other important duties within the Civil Service, and you surprise me by asking me such a question. We want women to fill other important positions, and I can assure you that we will appoint more of them.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney)-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! Your question, please.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, I merely wanted to tell him that I am not questioning the choice of that woman, and that if he really wanted to depoliticize the appointments-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Churchill.
830

December 3, 1984
Oral Questions


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS NEGOTIATION OF FORMULA
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Last week the Prime Minister wrote a letter to me which read in part:
At the time the new formula was negotiated, all provinces agreed with its objectives.
Since it was obvious that the Province of Quebec and the Province of Manitoba objected violently to the equalization formula, why did the Prime Minister write that to me? If he did not write, it, who wrote that statement for him?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I was indicating to my hon. friend that the various formulae that we have inherited will be subject to renegotiation but were there when the new Government came in. I never meant to suggest that they were perfect, but they were there and we are trying to improve upon them. That is exactly what the Minister of Finance has been doing in Manitoba, Quebec, and elsewhere.


PROVISION OF INFORMATION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister explain why he is giving me false information as to what the positions of the provinces were?


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Rodney Edward Murphy: Why is he giving us false information when he knows that at least two provinces disagreed with that equalization formula?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is in order.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend does himself-


Sheila Maureen Copps: How is your Teddy, Brian?


Martin Brian Mulroney: A little better than yours.
My hon. friend does himself and the House a disservice when he suggests that another Hon. Member wilfully misled him. I did no such thing. All the information he sought was provided in a way that I thought was above board and helpful. If the Hon. Member disagrees with it, that is his prerogative. However, I can give him the assurance that it was provided in the most honourable way.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. I would like to ask him to confirm that on Monday, November 19, he met with prosecutors from across the country who are prosecuting cases dealing with unlicensed cable television operators, and that he gave them the go-ahead to continue with those prosecutions on that date.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, that may have been the date on which I met with the people from the Department who were assembled here in Ottawa, but I did not meet with any such group for the purpose of discussing prosecutions of cable companies or anything of the like.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I did not ask whether that was the purpose of the meeting. I asked whether that direction was given. Had the Minister, prior to that meeting, received from his colleague, the Minister of Communications, or any of the officials from the Department of Communications, information about the necessity or desirability of continuing those prosecutions?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke to the officials of the Department I was not speaking on departmental business. There were a few words of greeting and a few words on general topics. I do not know to what the hon. gentleman is referring or what his informants told him, but the issue was not discussed, and it is completely irrelevant to whatever the hon. gentleman is trying to grope for.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, approving the Supplementary Estimates as presented to the Committee.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
December 3, 1984


PETITIONS
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present a petition signed by my constituents through the Vierge Altagrace Housing Co-operative. They humbly ask the government to reintroduce, for the benefit of our senior citizens who worked so hard, the Canada Works program for the Vierge Altagrace Housing Co-operative project which has been in abeyance for three years.


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this, the day after the murder of the eighth police officer in Canada in the last four months, to present a petition signed by 269 residents of Ottawa West and other Canadian citizens, calling for the reinstatement of capital punishment for conviction of first degree murder.


Mr. Speaker:: Could I take a moment to remind Members that it is unfair to the Chair and to other Members of the House to pass between the Speaker and the Member who is speaking. It makes it very difficult both for whoever is on the floor and for me. I would appreciate it if Hon. Members would undertake to remember that practice in the future.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



FOREIGN EXTRATERRITORIAL MEASURES ACT


John Carnell Crosbie: that Bill C-14, an Act to authorize the making of orders relating to the production of records and the giving of information for the purposes of proceedings in foreign tribunals, relating to measures of foreign states or foreign tribunals affecting international trade or commerce and in respect of the recognition and enforcement in Canada of certain foreign judgments obtained in antitrust proceedings, be now read the first time and printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Order Paper Questions NARCOTIC CONTROL ACT

Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-213, an Act to amend the Narcotic Control Act (therapeutic use of heroin).


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to provide for the medical use of heroin, especially in the management of pain for the terminally ill. A similar Bill had its subject matter referred to committee in the last Parliament, but it was overtaken by the parliamentary calendar and by dissolution. I am hoping that the House will allow the committee to finish its work in this session.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Government House Leader)):: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 26.



DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES LAWYERS

Mr. Howie: How many lawyers are employed by the Department of Supply and Services?


Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: There are 18 lawyers assigned to the Department of Supply and Services from the Department of Justice.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, before I give consent to let the questions stand, I would like to bring to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary his habit of answering only one question a day. There have been a total of seven questions answered out of the over 100 questions which have been put to the Government. I just wondered if-


Mr. Speaker:: I am in some difficulty. The House has developed the practice of allowing questions with regard to the

December 3, 1984
Order Paper Questions
status of a specific question. It is not a matter of consent as much as it is a matter for the House to agree to let the other questions stand. With great respect, I do not want to introduce the concept of general comments with regard to these practices, as this period could be extended longer than is necessary.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: With all due respect, I am not entertaining debate. Mr. Speaker, you will have to ask for unanimous consent to allow the other questions to stand. I am telling you that I will not give that unanimous consent continuously in the weeks to come if the Parliamentary Secretary does not give the answers which are requested of him. I am simply giving you notice that you may not get unanimous consent to stand these questions in the days to come.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member may want to consult the effect of refusing to give unanimous consent, if he were to choose to do so. I presume he knows what will happen to the questions on the Order Paper if he does that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I sure do.


Mr. Speaker:: I simply wanted to ensure that the Hon. Member knew about that.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary about the status of question No. 65, which I submitted on November 13.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Hon. Member quite simply that it has not yet been answered.


John V. Nunziata: I would also like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary about the status of question No. 66, which I submitted on November 13.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I think I should point out to the Hon. Member that in previous times a Member of this House had questions on the Order Paper for eight years and the previous government refused to answer them.
I would like to point out that as of the eighteenth sitting day, which was last Friday, this Government had answered 5.9 per cent of the questions, whereas on the eighteenth sitting day of the Thirty-second Parliament, the government had answered only 4.5 per cent of the questions.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary that that is no less debate on the matter than that attempted by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).
Does the Hon. Member for York-South Weston (Mr. Nunziata) have another question on this matter?


John V. Nunziata: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary when I might have answers to the 12 questions which I submitted to the Government. Can he give me a time frame?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Soon.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):
That this House regrets that, after less than three months in office, the Government is in growing disarray as demonstrated by its harmful, inadequately considered and irresponsible cuts in government services of importance to the economic and social development of the regions and of individual Canadians as well as by Ministers' apparent inability to manage their departments and their relations with the provinces and with the public.
Mr. Speaker:: Since the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) was in the middle of his question and comment period, I will advise the House that there are eight minutes remaining for questions and comments.
If there are no questions or comments, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Kootenay West.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I was beginning to wonder if today was in fact an Opposition day. I was also beginning to wonder if the Opposition was serious about the Opposition day. 1 thought that the Opposition might proceed in the next hour to deal with Questions on the Order Paper and to filibuster the House. That would give us an indication of how serious it is not about the embarrassing motion which has been proposed. The motion is embarrassing to the Opposition.


Don Boudria: It is your Government that is embarrassing.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Let me review the Opposition motion. It states that the Government is in growing disarray "as demonstrated by its harmful, inadequately considered and irresponsible cuts". Including the words "inadequately considered" would infer that we really have not examined the matter in any depth and that what we should do is resort to greater study. For the record, Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn to Hansard of November 7, 1984, at page 38. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) said, and I quote:
Studies are not action. Process is not an agenda for progress. The Prime Minister and his Party have a massive majority.
At least we can agree on that.
We can see it in this House. We can see it all around us. Now they are the Government. Now they must face the tough issues and difficult decisions.
That is what the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition asked us to do, that is what we are doing and that is what that Party
December 3, 1984

is now complaining about. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition goes on to say, and I quote:
That is what their role is. That is what the Canadian poeple put them into office to do, not to study, contemplate, ruminate and meditate.
What do we find today, Mr. Speaker? We find an article in The Citizen entitled "Sky High", and the relationship to the title is the $1 million cost of the probe into the crash of Air Canada's Gimli Glider. I think it should more likely be called the "Gimli gimmick" which was perpetrated on the Canadian people by the former Minister of Transport. The former Minister of Transport insisted that the probe be held in Winnipeg, coincidentally in his riding, because, after all, Gimli is not too far away from Winnipeg and that is where the Air Canada Boeing 767 went down, out of gas. Therefore, it should follow that that is where the study should be held. But how many times did that commission manage to get to Gimli? Just once, Mr. Speaker. Yet that commission managed to go to Vancouver, London, Frankfurt, Zurich, Paris, Seattle, San Francisco, Manhattan, Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, Montreal and Edmonton in order to find out how an airplane runs out of gas.


John Carnell Crosbie: And it never ran out of gas once.


Robert Hylton Brisco: You are right. And the study is still not ready. That is the kind of contemplation and rumination which the former government indulged in. Those Hon. Members should not ask us to perform that kind of self-examination of our navels at an enormous cost to the taxpayers.
The Liberal Party says that the cuts in government services, which are of importance to the economic and social development of the regions, is irresponsible. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) said this morning: "We must be putting more money into people's pockets". What that means in effect is that we do not cut, we spend. If that is not what the Hon. Member is saying, then I stand to be corrected. What I believe he is saying is that we do not decrease the deficit, we increase it.
The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor advised us that he is an economist. As such he is some form of a specialist. I must say, however, that that specialty is in deep trouble in his Party. Mr. Laxer tells us that he is in deep trouble in terms of his Party because the Party is in deep trouble in terms of its economic philosophy. I recall on Cross Country Checkup when the Leader of the New Democratic Party was waxing eloquently about how up to date his Party was in its philosophy and policy. He was really upset with Mr. Laxer and was letting Canadians know that the New Democratic Party was right on its economic track. When was the program Cross Country Checkup aired? It was just before the election campaign. It was in 1984 and the closest year the Leader of the New Democratic Party could refer to as reference was 1979. He said his Party went along with the Liberals in 1979, but he is right out of touch in 1984. I do not believe he has ever read Orwell. If he has, he must have started at the back of the book and read it in reverse. The corollary is that we do not discourage investment, we encourage it, thereby encouraging
Supply
Canadians to put their savings into the elements which are going to bring this country back from the brink of disaster and rebuild the economy.
I would be very interested in terms of the election campaign just past to know what the Liberal policy is on this particular problem with which we are faced, the deficit. How does the Liberal Party rationalize its motion? I would like to know what the New Democratic Party policy is. I say that on the basis of my experience in appearing on eight or ten open line shows during the period of the election campaign.
What a spectacle, Mr. Speaker, of the Liberal candidate looking through her policy book-which consisted of three pages, handwritten. Finally, in the last week of the election campaign, glory be, there it was with the Liberal logo on the front. It was official. When I asked the former Hon. Member for Kootenay West what his Party's policy on mining was, he did not know. He did not believe there was a policy on mining.
I knew what the New Democratic Party's policy on forestry was because it had copied ours. That was a great help because at least we could communicate on that subject. There are two main resources of Kootenay West, mining and forestry, and at least the former Hon. Member for Kootenay West was half right; but there was an absence of policy as indicated by the thinness of the manual. It looked like a starved child.
During the election campaign I had the opportunity, as did many Canadians, to listen to the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor speak on the CBC in programs of national consequence. In fairness, I wondered what that Party had to offer us. If they could not tell us what the answers were, at least they could give us some concrete solutions or suggestions. That is what I had hoped for, and some things which the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor had to say did make sense.
However, this House of Commons is the place not just for debate; it is a place where one should be prepared to listen to the concrete solutions of either the Government or the Opposition. Just because one is in opposition is no justification to slam and kick. It is an opportunity to offer alternatives. But I have yet to hear from Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party or Hon. Members of the Liberal Party as to any alternatives. I have heard them say "Cut this, butcher that, do this", but in terms of laying out in a sensible and cohesive manner a proposal which any Party could consider, be they on this side or the other side, I would have to say how disappointed I am in the rabble across the way.
The motion moved by the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), Mr. Speaker, refers to "harmful, inadequately considered and irresponsible cuts". Let me ask Hon. Members opposite where they were when the NDP got together with the Liberals on the National Energy Program, a total economic disaster? Were they ever in Alberta or northern British Columbia, or were they comfortably sequestered in their seats in this House of Commons? Did you see any of these Hon. Members out in northern British Columbia, off the beaten track in the Fort St. John gas-producing area? Did you

December 3, 1984
Supply
see them at drill sites in Alberta? No, sir! I can remember reading a document in which the NDP energy critic thought that tar sands and heavy oil were the same thing. So much for knowledge. So much for the ability to criticize intelligently.
How many Members opposite realize that when you drill for oil it is not just a brace and bit. When you drill for oil you are talking about a structure that takes two years to build and costs millions of dollars. It requires up to 40 flatbed trucks to move it from one site to another. In the case of a deep well, it is 64 trucks. But they do not realize that, Mr. Speaker. They did not see the industry shut down, the trucks parked and unmoving. Neither did they see the tool retrieval firms with half a dozen employees go bankrupt. They did not see the suppliers of equipment and services to the oil and gas sector. How many of them ever went to the small town of Drayton Valley and looked at the number of houses for sale? None of them, Mr. Speaker. They were in isolation, wrapped up in their House of Commons cocoons. They dared not step off the threshold.
The bottom line is that they have never cared for the West. Never! The Party with its roots in the West is the very Party that abrogated its responsibility to the West. I speak of the NDP. That, Mr. Speaker, is what has brought about their demise and will continue to do so.
They pose questions about economic and social development of the regions. We have had some howling about the four and a half person-years being removed from the interpretation centre at the Creston Valley Wildlife Management area. I have not heard a word out of these people opposite about the social and economic impact on loggers, truckers and other equipment operators of the rebate of 20 cents a gallon on fuel taxes for the resource sector. I have not heard a word about the difference that is going to make to the trucker who has to haul logs some 40 miles over back roads. I have not heard a word about the fact that this 20-cent rebate will mean that, on the basis of fuel consumption and mileage, a trucker will now be able to buy one new tire a month, and there are 18 tires on a logging truck. I have not heard a word about the fact that that rebate can mean the difference between survival and failure, between employment and unemployment, in the fragile forest industry of British Columbia. I have not heard a word about the opportunities provided to the mining sector. But then of course, they really have not asked about them, Mr. Speaker.
The motion, as framed, is specious and frivolous, particularly when I hear them talk about the social consequences. Do not talk to me about social consequences when I represent a riding with the highest unemployment rate in British Columbia at 24 per cent.


Sergio Marchi: What are you doing about it?


Robert Hylton Brisco: Working a darn sight harder on it in this House of Commons than you are, sir.


Sergio Marchi: Answer the question.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I would be pleased to answer your question after 1 have had my shot.


John V. Nunziata: Answer it right now.


Robert Hylton Brisco: No, I am not going to bother with your frivolous question at this moment.
When it comes to the social and economic consequences of 24 per cent unemployment, I have seen them. Why do you suppose that the third floor of the Nelson Hospital has 12 beds occupied now instead of one? Why do you suppose the people occupying those beds are there by virtue of acute mental and psychological depression? It is because in Nelson, B.C., there is a 24 per cent unemployment rate.
In Kootenay West we have the highest unemployment rate in British Columbia, and among the eight highest in Canada. When they talk to me about social consequences, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you that those miners are glad to have the opportunity to get back to work. Forest workers, loggers, truck drivers, skidders, they are all delighted at the opportunity to know that this 20-cent rebate, taken across the board, can mean the difference between survival and failure. But what do I see here? I see a member of the Liberal Party grinning. I hope he never has the misfortune to have the level of unemployment in his constituency that I have in mine. If he did, he would not be sitting there grinning. He would understand the impact that has on the people I care for and whom he should be caring for.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I will turn to a statement by the Economic Council of Canada. They have again reminded us of how we got into our current fiscal mess. Perhaps the Liberals and NDP on the opposite side who have a grain of doubt in their minds should carve this in stone on their foreheads. What happened was quite simple, and I quote:
We designed elaborate government programs in the sixties, and added to them in the seventies. Yet the economic growth to pay for the programs faded in the seventies, opening an increasing gap between expenditures and revenues. The recession of 1981-82 blew the gap wide open, sending the federal deficit from $ 10-billion to $35-billion.
They went on to say:
Tighter spending controls, a review of some 'tax expenditures' and a more relaxed monetary policy is the combination the country requires.
Those are the proposals put forward by the Economic Council of Canada. I look forward to listening to some good sense and good suggestions from the opposition side. How refreshing that would be in the House of Commons.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to my hon. friend that despite the differences in this House, no one grins about unemployment, whether it is in his riding, mine, in eastern Canada or western Canada.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member about the unemployment situation in his own riding. The Hon. Member's Government was elected on a promise of job creation as the first priority, not necessarily cutting the deficit. His Leader and caucus went around the country from east to west promising thousands of jobs overnight. I would think they were also referring to the Hon. Member's riding. What does the Hon.
December 3, 1984

Member's Government have to propose concerning job creation for the people in his riding and others? Give us some solutions instead of only talking about concepts and the idea of co-operation, consideration and consultation. Many Canadians believe that such talk adds up only to vegetation. Let the Hon. Member tell us what he proposes not only for his riding but for other ridings across this country that face unemployment. Let him put those proposals on the floor.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty in responding to that question in terms of my own riding. I would rather not offer solutions for all the other ridings because that is a rather heavy responsibility to deal with today. However, I am more than prepared to respond in terms of the constituency of Kootenay West.
What has the Government done? If the Hon. Member had been paying attention he would have heard that the forestry sector in British Columbia is in very serious trouble. It is facing oversupply primarily as a result of cutting wood for nothing else but two by fours. The economy has forced that sector to consider modernization, expansion and efficiency. We have provided the ways and means for such improvements to one sawmill in particular through assistance in the sum of approximately $1.25 million, which will guarantee the maintenance of existing jobs. In terms of the Hon. Member's question, I believe that is an example of what the Government is doing.
We are also considering an application by Cominco-which is the largest silver, lead and zinc producer in the free world- for assistance in the construction of a new lead smelter in Trail. That will generate 600 jobs directly for six years. The spin-off benefits in the ratio of two to one should be evident to the Hon. Member. The application of that particular project would certainly prevent a directly negative impact on approximately 3,000 jobs along with the spin-off effect on 40,000 people living in a number of communities.
I would suggest that the initiative, which has been approved, and the Cominco application, which is being studied, will go a long way to help to secure job opportunities and create additional job opportunities in the forestry sector.
I have already mentioned the impact of the 20 cent per gallon tax abatement on diesel and gasoline fuels for off-road use in the bush and in the mining sector.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I am goaded into making some comments and asking a brief question. First, I would suggest that if the Hon. Member read Hansard more carefully, he would see that there are four occasions since this session started when, as our Party's spokesman for economic development, I laid out positive suggestions for reviving the economy.
I have made speeches about industrial development, agricultural policy, tax policy and trade strategy. If the Hon. Member is interested, I can give him the references.
He also suggested that there was a comment in my criticism of the Government dealing with putting money in people's
Supply
pockets and that somehow it suggested irresponsibility. I was suggesting, and continue to stress, that it is crucial to our economy to put more money into the pockets of the taxpayers of this country who, I believe, are overtaxed. The economic crisis in this country, as in fact analysed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), stressed the problem of consumer confidence. His approach to creating more confidence has been tax those people more and to cut back public sector services.
It is our opinion that such an approach does not make sense since one creates more consumer confidence by allowing ordinary Canadians to have more money in order to be able to spend more and have a greater sense of security for the future.
How can the Hon. Member, as a Conservative, stand up in the House and make the kind of commentary he does when so many of his colleagues in the last Parliament made commitments, such as to ensure that borrowing does not take place for the next fiscal year, to provide, an open government, and to consult with groups affected by policies, yet his own Government is taking a step by step move away from those past commitments?


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). If he cares to provide me with the page reference to his comments on agriculture, the tax system and economic development, I would be pleased to read them.
In his remarks this morning, the Hon. Member made frequent reference to butchery when I hoped that he would give some solid and forthright suggestions about what his Party's policy would be as a solution.
He stated that there is too much taxation and that taxpayers should have more money in their pockets. However, the economic indicators suggest that there should be more taxation. The Economic Council of Canada is saying that there should be more taxation. It also stated that any government is fearful of adding to the tax burden of taxpayers.
If I understood the Hon. Member correctly, when he spoke of putting money into people's pockets, he meant reverting back to the grant system. While there are times when I believe the grant system is more appropriate, I have seen some major abuses of the grant system in my constituency. When the Canada Works applications come before my advisory board, they will be most carefully screened. I do not want to see an apple juicing plant erected in a community where there are no apple trees. I do not want someone given a grant to build a pelton wheel factory, only to have that building revert to that person for him to sell when in fact no pelton wheels are produced. It is that kind of use of the grant system that I am against.
With respect to the issue of seeking borrowing authority for the next fiscal year, I think the Hon. Member must realize that, for the Government to implement even to a degree only the programs which his own Party espouses as well as our programs that will help generate short-term employment and meaningful long-term job training, borrowing is necessary at this stage. I do not like it any more than the Hon. Member,

December 3, 1984
Supply
but it is an issue that has confronted us and one which we have acted upon. We must bite the bullet, and we have done so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is now over. We will resume debate.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to enter the debate on the opposition motion of the Liberal Party. Basically, the motion states that after less than three months the Government does not seem to know where it is going.
While I support the motion, having sat in the House the last number of years when the Liberals were in power, I have often wondered whether the Liberal government knew where it was going. In most instances the Liberal government did not know where it was going. It was crisis management, going from pillar to post and not really providing any leadership for Canadians and for our economy.
The September 4 election of the new Government, I hasten to add, brought with it a lot of promise and hope, but we have seen in the last three months what type of direction this Government wants to take. To tell you the truth, Mr. Speaker, I am quite afraid. At first 1 was quite hopeful. While in Opposition I had an opportunity to talk and meet with a fair number of members of the Conservative Party. I got the impression that many were people with whom I could associate myself. Many were small "c" Conservatives who were concerned about preserving and conserving.
I am very committed to the notion of a conserving society. I believe that Canada and most of the industrialized western countries are going through major economic, social and environmental changes. The rapid growth in the past has in many ways reached its limits. For society to survive in the 21st century, we must begin to conserve scarce resources, for instance, energy and other natural resources. We must attempt to conserve our land, clean water, and clean air. We must begin to conserve and use wisely our capital and human resources. I had hoped, perhaps naively, that this new Government might begin the task of introducing into the Canadian social and economic fabric some of the notions of a conserving society. How disappointed I was when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) brought down his economic statement.
It seemed to me that all the programs which the Liberals had introduced in a hesitant way, often as a result of pressure from people such as New Democrats, and I must say as well the odd Conservative Member, were some of the main programs which the Minister of Finance and the Conservative Party elected to cut back or abolish as a whole.
Let us go through the list. First, let me deal with environmental questions. Coming from Saskatchewan, I have been concerned with the increasing use of herbicides and pesticides. It has been the practice in the last number of years to use chemical products to kill weeds and undesirable pests. Over the years we find that insects and plants develop resistance to these chemical products, and so more powerful chemical products are needed to do the job. We have also found that some of the tests that determine the safety of these products on the environment and on consumers have not been all that honest.
A number of years ago I rose in my place in the House and brought to the attention of the former Minister of the Environment, the former Minister of Health, and the former Minister of Agriculture the faulty testing of International Bio-Test Laboratories in the United States. It had done most of the testing on almost all of the herbicides and pesticides that are on the market in Canada today. It was discovered that that lab had deliberately falsified the tests. The matter was first brought up in a Senate subcommittee by Senator Kennedy in the United States. I raised questions in the House and in committee on numerous occasions. In the beginning, the then Minister of Health pooh-poohed me. She said that I was unduly raising the concerns of Canadians and that our system of testing the safety of these products was quite adequate. Many officials of International Bio-Test Laboratories are in jail in the United States. The governments both in the United States and in Canada have had to withdraw certain products from the market because they were found unsafe. Tests had to be redone costing millions of dollars, for which farmers and consumers must eventually pay.
It has been recognized that the massive use of chemicals will have a detrimental effect on users, consumers, and the environment. Studies after studies have been done by the Department of the Environment showing mutations among the lower level of biological life at the lake bottoms in Saskatchewan and in the Great Lakes as a result of the chemical residue that washes into these fresh bodies of water.
Programs that monitor changes in the lower form of life give warning signals to the rest of society. They tell us that abnormal changes in the life pattern are occurring and these will eventually move up into life's chain, affecting the health and welfare of all Canadians. This monitoring is important if we are to conserve the fresh water we have for the generations to come. The speed of technological change is such that it is not just the health and safety of generations to come with which we must concern ourselves but the health and safety of our own generation.
I was very sad to notice that one of the programs to be cut by this Government was the program to study toxicology and the program to study the effects of dioxins and other such substances in the Great Lakes.
A number of years ago I had the privilege together with my colleagues of touring the dump sites at Niagara on both the Canadian and the American sides. I saw the Love Canal. I am speaking not only of the Love Canal; there are other dump sites in which Hooker Chemical has dumped thousands of pounds of highly toxic materials. When the war in Vietnam came to an end, Hooker Chemical realized it had un-needed chemicals, such as Agent Orange. One will recall that DDT was banned. Hooker Chemicals decided to bury their un-needed chemicals in dump sites. We know there has been a certain amount of leeching from these dump sites through the Niagara River into the Great Lakes. We know there are toxic chemi-
December 3, 1984

cals in the dump sites. If some irresponsible person or some act of nature such as a storm, an earthquake, or whatever else were to wash enough of these highly toxic substances into the Great Lakes system, it would destroy the system as a source of fresh water for humans. The whole of the Great Lakes could become so filled with toxic substances that human beings would no longer be able to draw from it water to drink. It is so sad for me to hear that the program to monitor the amount of dioxin material in the Great Lakes is scrapped. I call that false economy. In fact, to say false economy is mild. It is such stupidity that it amazes me. For the sake of a few million dollars, the Government is willing to risk the water supply for all of southern Ontario. That is stupidity to the nth degree.
As a country we have one of the richest forms of natural wildlife. Today I received a letter from The Saskatchewan Natural History Society. I should like to read a paragraph of it for the record. It reads:
In particular our members are most outraged by cuts which will: close the Prairie Wildlife Interpretation Centre near Swift Current; halt the planned reintroduction of the Swift Fox, an endangered species; and cancel the 1985 opening of Grasslands National Park. Our members also wish to protest: reduction of wildlife research programs; elimination of the wildlife habitat acquisition fund and the termination of the 200 seasonal naturalist positions in National Parks.
This Government, previous governments and governments to come have a responsibility to preserve our wildlife so that it is not dissipated within the life span of our generation. It is terrible for us in this generation to assume that we can despoil wildlife for generations to come. Surely we have a responsibility and a duty to maintain our natural wildlife. The actions of the Government for the sake of saving a few million dollars have determined that the Swift Fox as an endangered species can go by the way and that the Grasslands National Park can go by the way, that there is no need to preserve them. What false economy!
Turning to the list of further cut-backs, I should like to deal with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. As we move into a time when energy will cost more because it is an unrenewable resource, even though market conditions will see the price fluctuate, we know that in the end the price and cost of energy will rise.
The solution for reasonable men and women is to begin to preserve, conserve and develop alternatives. With a downturn in the cost of energy such as the one we are experiencing now because of international situations and a downturn in the economy, we have been provided with a bit of breathing room. Now is the time to have on stream some of the alternatives- solar, wind and different forms of hydro. It is essential for us to make these alternatives into economically viable alternatives while there is time. Let us not awaken one morning to find another oil crisis where the cost of energy will go through the roof and threaten the economic and social well-being of the country. Let us not discover that we have not done our work on developing alternatives. Lo and behold, it is another area which the Government has deemed to be unuseful and deserves
Supply
to be cut. The NRC program developing wind, solar and alternative forms of energy is cut. The home insulation program is cut and will eventually die. That particular program saved the skin of the previous government and of Canadian taxpayers by the amount of energy it saved. Positive-thinking Canadians participated in that program. Governments at the time called upon Canadians to work together to help preserve and conserve energy, and Canadians responded. Surely that is the road the Government must follow if it really believes in working with people and being dedicated to conserving and preserving.
No, that is not the route the Government wants to see Canadians develop. Instead, we will become more dependent upon the oil industry and upon those people who hold the economic and social well-being of our country in their fists. Rather than encouraging and providing leadership for Canadians to develop alternatives and independence, we will be forced into a greater dependency upon the oil industry.
Turning to the area of housing, again I refer to the work of the National Research Council in developing more energy-efficient housing. That program will be scrapped. RRAP attempts to conserve and preserve older housing stock in the city core. That program has been cut. Our city cores can rot. As long as land developers and speculators on the outskirts of cities are doing their thing, everything must be hunky-dory as far as the Tories are concerned. So much for the core of our cities.
Let me deal with the cuts in cultural agencies. Wise men and women who have the responsibility of government must realize that if we are to preserve ourselves as an independent country, having our own sense of identity and culture and living so close to the American border and its culture, it is the responsibility of governments to work with the private sector to help maintain and conserve a separate cultural identity. This is why cultural activities are so essential for the well-being of our nation as a separate entity. However, we see further cut-backs in essential cultural services to the country.
The Tories say, "preserve it" and "conserve it"; in fact, that was their slogan in Ontario. In fact, they ran Ontario Hydro ads reading "preserve it, conserve it". The previous speaker from Kootenay West made reference to George Orwell. I would like to do likewise. Surely Newspeak is occurring here, the utterance of slogans which in the end are just empty slogans. The government Party is not committed to preserving and conserving. It is committed to exploitation. It is committed to exploiting the environment here and now and damn the future, damn the environment, damn the quality of life and the quality of our fresh water. It is not a conserving Party. It is one that exploits, one that would seek to exploit our valuable human, technological and environmental resources just for its sake right now. It is not concerned with the future. It is not composed of men and women who have the well-being of generations to come at heart. Its bottom line is whether its members will be re-elected in four years. Its time span is a very narrow one. As we move into the 21st century, I am afraid it is a mind-set which will lead to disasters such as the urea formaldehyde disaster, thalidomide babies, environmental

December 3, 1984
Supply
mistakes, miscalculations and misplanning. Future generations will have to pay many more dollars to correct the mistakes that these people are making in the name of false economy. As such, I wholeheartedly support this motion.


M. Dick:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question. He has advocated expenditure on a number of items which have been postponed. Would he prefer a larger deficit this year than previously announced by the Liberals? Would he like to spend forever?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I have given two speeches in this House dealing with the deficit. I am well on record as saying that the deficit has to be reduced. I have been suggesting that there are false economies. I suggest that these cuts in the environment, science and preventive health care are false economies that will in the end cost us more.
The point in both my speeches is that this Government is concerned about the expenditure side of the balance sheet. The Economic Council reported last week that the Canadian Government has not overspent. As the Economic Council pointed out, we have not been collecting the revenues that should have been collected.
I pointed out the scam in the research and development tax credit. Introduced by our Liberal friends, it was supposed to involve only $100 million in lost revenue. When the Liberals left, it had run up to $1.5 billion. Apparently there is a grandfather clause. We will lose another $400 million to $500 million under the Tories because of this grandfather clause. Instead of putting on a moratorium, we will lose another half billion dollars under this grandfather clause. That half billion dollar loss would do more than just restore these cut-backs in the environment, preventive health care and home insulation.
That is why my answer to the Hon. Member is that these cuts are false economies. The public Treasury could have saved money in ways they have chosen to ignore. Rather, they cut areas that are essential to the health and well-being of Canada.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, in the two speeches on the deficit, did the Hon. Member explain in detail where he would either raise the revenue or cut expenditures in the nature of $4 billion or $5 billion to reduce the deficit somewhat? Did he detail where he would make the cuts or increase the revenue?


Simon Leendert de Jong: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not given a counterbudget. As soon as the Government introduces its full budget, there will be opportunities to introduce a counterbudget. I have suggested one item to the Hon. Member: Put the freeze on the grandfather clause that deals with R and D. That would save the public Treasury some $500 million. With that saving, the Government could restore some of the cut-backs in preventive health care, home insulation, alternate energy and the environment.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Does the Hon. Member not believe that he would gain credibility if he suggested, rather than just criticising, a constructive alternate package of cuts and tax increases?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. That is why we will be asking the Government for much more information. We want to know about the $4.5 billion in uncollected taxes. We want to know whether the $1.6 billion that the corporate sector has not paid in taxes, even though it accepts the fact that it owes these taxes, has been collected. We want to know why the $400 million which companies have deducted from their employees to be remitted to the Government has not been remitted. Why is the Government writing off $100 million of that amount?
We want to know some of the deferred taxes. We want to know the type of information introduced by the Minister of Finance in the Clark Government with regard to tax loopholes and how much lost revenue has occurred. We would like to know how many jobs were created and how much useful social activity occurred because of these tax breaks. When we have that information, we will be able to supply the Hon. Member with a blueprint of how to balance our budget and still do the important things a Government needs to do, such as conserving the health and the environment of Canada.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I want to be sure I heard the Hon. Member correctly. A moment ago he said he wanted to balance the budget. Is it now the position of the New Demo-cratid Party that it wants to have a balanced budget?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, it would be very foolish for us to attempt to balance the budget in one year. It would create social havoc. Let me point out, as I have done in other speeches-and the Hon. Member may not be aware of this- that when the NDP and its predecessor the CCF were the government of the Province of Saskatchewan, we had a balanced budget. When the Conservatives were elected in the Province of Saskatchewan in 1982, we had a surplus of $170 million. After less than two years of Conservative government, the Province of Saskatchewan has a deficit higher that all the deficits in the history of Sasktachewan rolled into one, thanks to a Conservative government. How they were able to accomplish that is still a puzzle to us. They cut back on social and human services and sold mines, highway equipment and public assets. They have done the cut-backs and have still rolled up a $1 billion deficit. That takes some doing.
Why is it that Conservative governments, whether elected in England, the United States or Saskatchewan, end up with higher deficits than ever before? The highest deficit in the United States is now, under a Conservative government. The highest deficit in England is now, under a Conservative government. The highest deficit in Saskatchewan is now, under a Conservative government.
I will stand here in my place one, two and three years from now and accuse this Government of increasing our deficit. I predict that with its economic policies there will be a downturn in economic development in this country, in economic activity.
December 3, 1984

Public revenues will fall and the deficit will increase under its so-called stewardship.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased that the Hon. Member stopped at the end of three years because in the fourth year we hope that he will be defeated. Under the NDP Government of Manitoba, the only NDP Government we have presently, that Province has the highest per capita deficit of any province. I did not know we were going to debate provincial budgets in the federal House.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: It started under Sterling Lyon.


Paul Wyatt Dick: This is much higher. The Hon. Member did not answer my question. How soon does he want to see the federal budget balanced?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, we all want to see our debts paid off as soon as possible. As I mentioned before, this cannot be done overnight. We have to accept some of the economic realities. We have to ensure that cuts are done with wisdom, care and in an open way. People should know the economic and social consequences of those cuts. That is how to begin to reduce the deficit. We must pinpoint where there are wasteful expenditures and where there are tax breaks and tax loopholes that are not productive. Once that information becomes public, it will become evident to all Members of Parliament and Canadians where the fat is to be trimmed, what loopholes are to be closed and what public revenues are to be saved. Until the Government comes across and starts supplying that information rather than trying to hide it in some secretive way, Canadians, including members of the Opposition, will never be able to give a straight answer to the Hon. Member because we do not have the information. The Government has the information and it does not want to share it with anybody.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments on the Hon. Member's speech is now over.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan)-Immigration- Request that 1985 entry level be increased; the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi)-Visible Minorities-Internment of Japanese Canadians during World War II. (b) Discussions with Japanese Canadian community; the Hon. Member
Supply
for Regina East (Mr. de Jong)-Airports-Automobile rental concessions.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques);
That this House regrets that, after less than three months in office, the Government is in growing disarray as demonstrated by its harmful, inadequately considered and irresponsible cuts in government services of importance to the economic and social development of the regions and of individual Canadians as well as by Ministers' apparent inability to manage their departments and their relations with the provinces and with the public.
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be taking part in the debate today and to second the motion moved by my colleague and friend, the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault).
I would like to start by mentioning the presence in the Chair of the newly elected Member for Vercheres (Mr. Danis) who has been a patient and courageous defender of Progressive Conservative interests in the Province of Quebec for many years, and I am sure it gives him a great deal of satisfaction to be here in the House.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore wish to offer you my best wishes for a successful though perhaps not very long career.
This Government, which has just received a very strong mandate from the Canadian people, started by creating expectations among all levels of our society. It is a fact that Canada is going through a difficult economic period. Because of the world economic situation, unemployment rates in this country have been fairly high, and, like other industrialized countries, we have also experienced a slowdown in economic growth.
At the time it was easy for the Opposition to criticize the Government and have Canadians believe that a change in government would be beneficial. However, we accept the verdict of Canadian voters. The Progressive Conservative Party offered Canadians an alternative, which was accepted. Voters thought that by electing Progressive Conservative Members, prosperity would return to this country and they would find jobs very shortly. We do not blame them for this political judgement. We are too democratic to complain about the result of an election. We accept the people's verdict, but, as the Official Opposition, it is our duty to point out to Canadians that this Government, which promised so much, is very slow to deliver on its promises and to respond to the expectations of Canadians.

December 3, 1984
Supply
I was reading the newspaper "Le Droit" and I saw a headline: "All talk, no action". I am referring to an editorial by journalist Alain Dexter, which appeared in the weekend edition. He was referring to the Government of Canada in connection with acid rain and said: "All talk, no action".
Mr. Speaker, I think this is an appropriate slogan for the new Government of Canada and its Prime Minister: "All talk and no action", because the Progressive Conservative Party's 338 election promises are certainly far from being kept, and I have no hesitation in saying right now that they will never be kept in the four years to come. All we have to do is look at what has been done, starting with the Throne Speech, and then the economic message by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), to realize that this Government has already aligned itself with certain groups in our society, to the detriment of those Canadians who are in need and constitute the most disadvantaged groups in our society. If anyone asked me what kind of favorites this Government plays, I would say without hesitation that this Progressive Conservative Government, this Mulroney Government, plays favorites with big business and more particularly, with the oil companies.
If we read the economic message carefully, in page after page the Minister of Finance focussed almost exclusively on energy questions, not for the benefit of Canadian consumers but for the benefit of the multinationals which are being given additional grants and additional concessions. And who is going to pay? Canadian consumers, who will have to pay more for gas and oil in the months and years to come. This Government had raised a lot of hope and paid close attention to the people of Canada, this Government had stated that job creation would be its first priority, yet this same Government has just shown through budget cutbacks that it will create unemployment rather than jobs for Canadians.
This morning, I listened to the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise), his maiden speech in the House. And what did the Member for Chambly say? He told us that the Government has a three-prong action plan: first, lower the deficit, second, ask the private sector to create jobs and, third, invite foreign investors to spur our economy.
Closer examination of those three points reveals that the Canadian Government has given up altogether on its responsibilities. It expects others to create jobs and launch the economic recovery. Not only will the Government fail to create jobs but, as a result of its drastic cutbacks in several departments, it will create unemployment directly by making Canadian public servants lose their jobs and, indirectly, by depriving Canadian institutions of the grants they had become used to, which they were entitled to and which they were given before by the Liberal Government.
Quite obviously, Mr. Speaker, the Government has switched priorities, anxious as it is to lower the deficit. That is what
leading businessmen and major corporations have been saying for years to the Canadian Government, and that is what they told us when we were in office: Cut the deficit.
I have never seen an ordinary worker, an ordinary citizen, somebody we refer to as the man in the street urge the Government to cut the deficit. Never! But I have seen many business leaders, businessmen and major corporation executives tell the Government to cut the deficit. Well, now, the first priority of the Progressive Conservative Government, its first measure is not to give jobs to those who need them. No, its first priority is to reduce the deficit, to make ordinary Canadians suffer even more just to please the corporate sector. That is why I say that the favourable prejudice of the Mulroney Government benefits the corporate sector to the detriment of ordinary Canadians. We in the Official Opposition will work hard and tirelessly to force the Government to keep the election promises it made this past summer and in early September. We will make sure that people across the land come to understand and recognize this Government's true character, this new character that clearly will honour some commitments to the large multinational corporations but will not help all those whom they had promised to help during the election campaign.
We are now convinced that this will be detrimental to this country's poor, to the co-operative groups that are cut from the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation's programs. It will be detrimental to the Canadian workers who welcomed the passing of the Canadian Labour Code Amendment Bill just before the Houses adjourned, and who now hear from the new Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) that time will be needed to draft the regulations and that the new amendments to the Canadian Labour Code will not become effective before a couple of years.
Mr. Speaker, this proves one thing. It proves that this Tory Government is not lending its ears to women and workers who were the main beneficiaries of the amendments to the Canadian Labour Code. This Government lends its ears to large corporations, to business people. Those bankers, those spokesmen for the Canadian Bankers' Association and the major Canadian manufacturers have told the Minister of Labour: "Sit on the regulations, wait before you put into force that Act which was passed by the previous Government. Take your time drafting the Regulations." And this Tory Government, with an ear of course for these businessmen and bankers, has shelved as far away as possible the drafting of the new regulations relating to the Canadian Labour Code.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I suggest this is not good enough. It is sheer irresponsibility for the new Government not to draft as a priority the regulations under the Canadian Labour Code amendments. This amounts to penalizing thousands of Canadian women who need those new regulations in order to have justice on the market place. This amounts to penalizing thousands of Canadian workers employed in businesses under the
December 3, 1984

jurisdiction of the Canadian Government and who need those regulations as soon as possible to be better protected on the market place. Knowing the large number of occupational accidents in Canada, knowing the number of hours lost due to such accidents, I cannot understand why this Government does not want to immediately implement the regulations needed to better protect Canadian men and women in the work place.
Finally, I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that a Government is very quickly judged according to what it does or does not do in the early stages of its mandate. As far as we are concerned, we very soon realized that this Government does not care for the people living in the most remotest parts of this country. People living in the most underprivileged areas have been the first hit by the cuts announced by the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). I need only look at the programs affected, like the dairy policy.
If there is one group of Canadians in need of Government assistance, it is our Canadian farmers, especially those who work hard under difficult conditions, rising very early in the morning to take care of their dairy farms. Yet, as a result of Government action there will be cutbacks in our dairy programs. I find this completely unacceptable.
Secondly, this government is going to cut funds appropriated to social housing. Is there any thing more unfortunate than the situation of our senior citizens or simple people, living on an inadequate income, who are unable to find decent housing in many regions of Canada? Yet, the first message given by the new Government to these people is that there will be cutbacks in its social housing programs, which means that the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation will not be able to build facilities for senior citizens or social housing units so essential in our Canadian economy to provide assistance to the poorest and most disadvantaged members of our society.
In addition, the Government is preparing to cancel our job mobility programs. Because it is difficult to find work nowadays, the previous Liberal Government had implemented a subsidy program whereby Canadians could move to other parts of the country where jobs are available. However, this program, under which assistance was provided to workers willing to move to other regions where jobs were available, has been cancelled by this Government. In my opinion, this goes directly against the interests of Canadian workers who are looking for jobs.
Finally, we have been told that job creation programs for young people and summer employment programs for students will be cancelled. This is another group in our society which needs Government assistance and which has been deceived and let down by this Progressive Conservative Government in the very first days of its administration.
I shall close by saying that it does not take long to judge a new Government, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian people certainly
Supply
want the economic situation to improve. They certainly want this Government to do well. That is why I urge the Progressive Conservative Government to keep its promises and to bring prosperity to all Canadians and to make jobs available to those who need them. This should be the first priority of this Government. We are looking forward to it. The Official Opposition will always support Government initiatives aimed at creating employment. We shall work in close cooperation with this Government to promote economic recovery. However, in the face of uncertainty, when the Government seems to want to reexamine everything, to give priority to a reduction in the deficit rather than to job creation, we have to say that this Government does not keep its promises as it should. We shall have to ask the Progressive Conservative Government to do better in the future, otherwise the people will be bitterly disappointed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Chateauguay (Mr. Lopez).


Ricardo Lopez: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet). I hope this time 1 am going to get answers, for I did not get any this morning when I directed a question to the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano).
I suppose that he simply could not answer. I suppose also that it would have been difficult for him to answer without placing himself in an embarrassing situation. Now that I am facing an Hon. Member with much more Parliamentary experience, I am quite sure he will be able to answer my questions.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Ask your question! You have wasted two minutes already!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please!


Ricardo Lopez: He is blaming us for trying to reduce the deficit which the previous administration has created. My question is this: Does the Hon. Member believe that we should allow the deficit to increase even more! He claims that no ordinary citizen has ever asked him to reduce the deficit. Does he expect ordinary citizens to come to the House and say: Dear Hon. Members, enough is enough? The deficit Canada is faced with is already more than we can pay. Indeed, it takes 33 per cent of our GNP to pay the interest alone. Does he suggest we should allow the deficit to grow bigger still? Does he not feel that when Canadians voted for change on September 4, they were actually saying: Enough is enough! Let us get rid of a government which can do nothing but mortgage our future?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) has the floor.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question of the Hon. Member for Chateauguay. Of course, I

December 3, 1984
Supply
give priority to job creation over the reduction of the deficit and he would know it had he listened to what the leader of the Liberal party said during the election campaign. The reduction of the deficit is of course a long-term objective we should strive for. Putting that objective ahead of job creation may be the Conservative solution but it is surely not the Liberal one. I remember that the leader of my hon. friend for Chateauguay said to Montrealers when he came to speak at Place Ville-Marie: "I promise you to make Montreal the major city it used to be." And Montrealers thought that it meant more jobs and more economic growth for Montreal.
Now the first step taken by his Minister of Finance was to make cuts in VIA Rail which means that the maintenance base for VIA Rail may not be built in Montreal. The Hon. Member is from the Montreal area and he should look into that matter.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) who belongs to the same cabinet has relocated the Canadian Air Safety Board in the National Capital area without any consultation even though he told me in this House that he had some consultations with concerned authorities. But we have documentary evidence that the mayor of Montreal or the chairmen of the Chamber of Commerce and the Board of Trade as well as the chairman of the Montreal Urban Community have declared: "We were never consulted by you. You have relocated that air organization which is quite important for the Montreal economy and you did so without prior consultation."
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member who has just put that question to me will join the Liberals to exert pressure on the Tory ministers so that Montreal will regain the status it once had, such as promised by the Progressive Conservative leader. Job creation measures will be needed rather than cuts such as those imposed by the Minister of Finance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Another supplementary question? The Hon. Member for Chateauguay (Mr. Lopez).


Ricardo Lopez: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is well aware that reducing the deficit is the key to creating jobs. Reducing the deficit will bring the interest rates down. And everybody knows that it is the excessively high interest rates resulting from the Liberal Party's mismanagement which is responsible for the high unemployment rate we now have in this country.
Does the Hon. Member not agree then that after we have reduced the deficit, we will be able to boost the economy and create jobs?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member for Chateauguay (Mr. Lopez), the overnight expert financial critic, is overlooking a number of international economic factors. He should recognize that the value of the Canadian dollar and the level of interest rates in our country are linked to the
economic situation in the United States, and that no matter the budget cuts my hon. friend would like to make to ease interest rates in Canada, our interest rates will fluctuate along with those in the United States.
And until such a time as the economic situation in the United States is dealt with by President Reagan's administration, this Conservative government has an obligation to do everything in its power to help the Canadian people who are looking for jobs. Young Canadians, one million and some hundreds of thousands Canadian men and women who are now unemployed want to hear something other than "the deficit will be reduced by the Conservative government". A lot of good that is going to do them in their efforts to find jobs. It is not by creating more unemployment within the federal Public Service for the sake of reducing government spending that we will help our unemployed people.


Paul Wyatt Dick: In the 12 years I have been here as an Hon. Member-the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) has been a cabinet Minister most of that time-we have gone from a surplus and, in the last ten years, an ever increasing deficit, allegedly because of job creation. At the same time, we have gone from 4.5 per cent unemployment to 12 per cent unemployment. Since we have tried the deficit route and have ended up losing jobs rather than creating jobs, would the Hon. Member not now agree that it is best to look at an alternative way of trying to create jobs?


André Ouellet: I regret to disagree with the Hon. Member. Quite clearly he forgets to mention one element which is extremely important. He and other Hon. Members of his Party very systematically avoid mentioning the fact that there have been more people entering the labour force during this period than in any other industrialized nation. What we have been faced with in Canada is not only the oil crisis of the industrialized world-


John Carnell Crosbie: Everyone faced that.


André Ouellet: -but at the same time the increase of the labour force due to the baby boom after the war.


John Carnell Crosbie: They had babies everywhere, not just in Canada.


André Ouellet: The number of people who entered the labour force increased because of the reality that there is more than one person per family who wants to work. Therefore, the previous government has had to face a tremendous request for jobs, which we met substantially by creating more jobs per capita than any other industrialized nation in the world.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Most of them for 20 weeks.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please! I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the time allotted to questions and comments has expired.
December 3, 1984


Mr. Joe Price (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address this House for the first time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Price: I look forward to the opportunity over the next three to four years of addressing and contributing to the process that takes place in this House in a meaningful and positive manner.
During the recent election campaign, the Progressive Conservative Party promised Canadians an enlightened national program for economic renewal, a program built on a solid foundation of open consultation with the provinces, the private sector, management and labour, women's groups, natives and minorities. We promised to build a dynamic national consensus that would define new national goals for Canada and a fair and equitable manner in which they could be realized. In the three short months since Canadians overwhelmingly endorsed our manifesto, we outlined, on November 8, the first chapter of a coherent national plan to involve Canadians in determining their collective destiny. It was a courageous effort, open, detailed, sound, logical and, above all else, honest. It is a plan that will give Canadians an opportunity to participate in a consultative and co-operative process that will lead to a rekindling of a vast potential which was kept dormant by the years of virtually uninterrupted Liberal mismanagement and frivolous abuse of their elected position. What the Liberal government of the last decade and a half failed to do, we have done in three short months.
The program of expenditure reductions announced on November 8 were part of a conscious, well defined plan for economic renewal, Mr. Speaker. They were not arbitrary, heavy-handed and callous reductions in government expenditure as suggested by the Hon. Member in his motion. They involved numerous responsible discussions between Ministers who took great care to ensure that no single group of Canadians or no single region was disproportionately affected. We were ever mindful that all expenditure reductions were not without some degree of pain. At the same time we were steadfast in our belief that some bitter medicine was needed to revitalize a great Canada left moribund by Liberal mismanagement and imprudence.
We were not alone in the belief that expenditure reductions were needed and could be effectively introduced. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) himself admitted during the campaign that there were billions of dollars in the current $100 billion federal budget being wasted. He said, and I quote:
There is a lot of space to reduce and cut expenditures and duplications. Programs which are no longer in force, which are no longer pertinent, wastage in public administration. 1 believe this reduction in expenditures could save us billions of dollars.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, federal Government spending has climbed from around $12 billion in 1968 to over $100 billion in 1984. A significant portion of this increase occurred in the four years since 1980. Government spending was only $50
Supply
billion when the Liberals were re-elected in 1980. The profligacy that followed in those short four years was unparalleled in recent history and is a matter of public record and public discontent. The last 10 years since 1974-75 has been characterized by a staggering accumulation in our public debt as the result of annual deficits, and I would like to examine briefly some of the facts.
In 1974-75, the net public debt was $24 billion. By the end of 1984-85, it will have risen to almost $190 billion, an eight-fold increase in 10 short years. In 1974-75, $1 out of every $20 of tax revenue was used to pay the net interest on this debt. If gross interest payments were used, the numbers are one in three in 1984-85, compared to one in nine just 10 years ago. Canada's national debt is growing much faster than the Canadian economy. The net public debt will have increased from 16.6 per cent of the Gross National Product in 1974-75, to a whopping 45.2 per cent in the current year. If allowed to grow as projected, by 1990-91 the net public debt will have more than doubled to $400 billion, or 63 per cent of the projected Gross National Product.
These continuing deficits and growing debt critically undermine confidence. They put upward pressure on interest rates and reduce prospects for growth, not to mention the psychological albatross around the necks of future generations of Canadians. Simply put, if taken all at once, then total deficit would cost each Canadian taxpayer over $17,000, more than many Canadians make in a whole year, Mr. Speaker.
The persistence of deficits, while eroding the confidence of foreign and domestic investors, is also indicative of the previous government's inability to manage its financial affairs with any degree of prudence. This Government cannot and must not tolerate the continuation of such a pattern of excessive expenditures relative to revenue. In behaving responsibly and practically, we introduced a number of very conscious policy and program decisions on November 8. The decisions were aimed at restoring some degree of fiscal flexibility within the context of creating an environment within which balanced and sustained growth could be fostered.
The Hon. Member has referred to harmful and irresponsible cuts and makes wild allegations regarding the relationship of this Government to the provinces and the public. We are all aware that government has become too big under too many years of Liberal mismanagement. With its regulations, subsidies and interventions, it intrudes perversely into the lives of Canadians and the Canadian market-place. Heaven help the poor unsuspecting Canadian business person who endeavours to find his way through the maze of over 100 federal government programs which purport to serve his needs.
During the campaign, Mr. Speaker, this Party promised to introduce principles of productive government management to ensure that Canadian taxpayers received value for money. To make government more responsive to the needs and aspirations of Canadians, we launched the ministerial task force on program review led by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen). Its mandate is to streamline the delivery of programs, to eliminate duplication, and to get more value for every dollar

December 3, 1984
Supply
spent. The reviews will involve consultation with Canadians, thereby making them a responsible and essential part of decisions which will affect their future. In a comparable fashion we will involve the provinces and the private sector in a continuing dialogue to build a better Canada.
Our strategy for economic renewal implicitly provides the framework for meaningful discussions while building a lasting partnership. This partnership cannot but lead to the realization of our objective to provide sustained growth and productive jobs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments? Since there are no questions or comments, I would like to call upon the next speaker.


Mr. Murray Dorin (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to rise today to speak to this motion put forward by the Liberal Party. I believe that the motion demonstrates the absolute moral bankruptcy of that Party. I knew that before the election but now I am convinced of it today.
The Liberals have the audacity to criticize us about government spending and our relations with the provinces and the public. It is unimaginable how the Liberals can condemn us after 20 years of spending public money like drunken sailors and inflating the deficit to $30 billion. We are attempting to deal with the problems which the Liberals have left with us.
How did today's problems come about and what can we do to solve them? The economic and fiscal mismanagement which has resulted in our record deficit began in the early and mid 1970s when the Minister of Finance at that time, the present Hon. Leader of the Opposition, talked about the need for restraint. During the five budgets that he introduced, federal government spending doubled, a $600 million surplus was transformed into a $4 billion deficit, and the net debt grew by 50 per cent. Public debt charges doubled, and the Public Service grew by 74,000, excluding cuts to the Armed Forces.
The Auditor General of Canada stated that Parliament had lost or was losing effective control of the public purse. According to a study by the C.D. Howe Institute at that time, three of the five budgets of the then Minister of Finance actually widened the gap between rich and poor. This is the legacy that we have inherited.
Following that auspicious beginning, the Liberal government continued another ten years of spending money, increasing the deficit and building a spirit of confrontation in this country, the likes of which we have never seen before. This is the legacy that we are now attempting to deal with as the Government.
The economic renewal strategy plan that was announced in the Throne Speech refers to removing impediments to growth, seeking national consensus for economic direction, reinvigorating investment, and enhancing private sector risk-taking and innovation among entrepreneurs.
In immediately attempting to reduce the huge federal deficit, this administration has realized that the cost of servicing
the deficit limits the Government's ability to meet priority economic and social needs. The deficit hides the real cost of government and does not allow for society's response to the needs of its citizens. The deficit inhibits private sector growth and constrains the Government's ability to encourage growth.
I am convinced that the most constructive role that our Government can play is to concentrate its attention on creating a kind of environment in which the private sector can do what it does best-to create jobs and new prosperity. Increasing private sector confidence and investment in the Canadian economy will result in the security of employment and jobs.
I suggest it is fair to ask why the deficit needs to be addressed. NDP members, including the NDP spokesman on industrial regional development, who claims to be an economist by profession, seemed unable to analyse what has happened to our country in the last 15 years of continued deficits. The Government, just like any business or individual, faces the problem of financing a debt when it spends more than it takes in. When the Government runs a deficit, it has two sources of financing. The first is the printing of money. The second source is borrowing. Both sources have inherent problems that eventually result in a weaker economy and the loss of jobs.
Let me explain briefly how this happens for the benefit of some Members who seem unable to make that link. In the early years of deficits, the governments resorted to printing money. The basic result was an expanding money supply and an ever-increasing inflation, which essentially robs the workers and those on fixed incomes of their spending power. In fact, it is a hidden tax.
The second method of financing is deficit borrowing. There are two sources of borrowing-foreign and domestic. Since the government must pay the interest and possibly repay the principal on a foreign debt, the result is pressure on the Canadian dollar. That pressure must be balanced by the Bank of Canada through such measures as an inflated interest rate. Canadians have seen the result of inflated interest rates in the last few years. The majority of federal government borrowing is done domestically. That domestic borrowing has a drastic economic effect because essentially it removes the available capital in this country and crowds out private borrowing. It raises the cost of money, which is, in essence, the interest rate.
Money is just like any other commodity. When there is an increased demand for money by the government, interest rates are driven up and foreign borrowing is crowded out.
Furthermore, we are all familiar with the very negative effect of high interest rates. We have witnessed how high interest rates have resulted in a decline in consumer spending for those high ticket items such as cars and housing which produce many jobs in this country. High interest rates are also very detrimental to small businesses which require sources of capital at a cost that will not prevent a new business from realizing a profit.
The job of rebuilding the Government's finances and implementing policies that will support economic growth and job creation is just beginning. We asked Canadians for this oppor-
December 3, 1984

tunity and we are absolutely delighted that we received such a strong national mandate for change. Canadians from all regions and from all groups expressed through their votes the belief that our country could and indeed had to do better.
I represent a western riding and therefore must travel extensively. I have talked to people in airports as well as to my constituents and have heard nothing but positive support for the direction in which the Government is heading. While I have received some correspondence at my office expressing some concern about individual cuts in spending or about programs that have been affected, most individuals realize that despite their concern, the Government had to control its spending and get its house in order. While these people may have asked for a review of their individual case, they essentially agree with the objectives of the Government.
The fact is that we have support for our policies. I believe that that is borne out by opinion polls, much to the dismay of our friends on the opposite side of the House. They are aware that Canadians acknowledge our progress and that we have their confidence. Canadians voted for a change in policies and in the approach of Government to the making of policy. This motion today is trying to tell us to go back to the old ways, the old ways of a government that had been spending money like a drunken sailor, spending it on a political basis aimed at ridings held by Liberal Members. One of my colleagues mentioned that the way to attack problems by the former government was to set up commissions so its friends could be well looked after, travel the world at taxpayers' expense and live, I think the words were, "reasonably comfortably". And what about the probe into the Gimli airplane case-


John Carnell Crosbie: The gimme case.


An Hon. Member:: The Gimli gimmick.


Murray Dorin: Yes, the Gimli gimmick. We are told that over $1 million has been spent, to find out what? The trip resulted in some fairly interesting information. What was that information? For instance, the Israeli airline decided to check levels manually on all its 767s before and after fueling. It is incredible that we would have to spend $1 million to find that out.


John Carnell Crosbie: Just by a dip stick.


Murray Dorin: And then we have Thumper Macdonald at $800 a day. I understand the counsel to this commission, a former provincial Liberal candidate in Manitoba, suggested that he was making about $800 a day. Everybody has basically acknowledged that he was dragging it out because he had a good thing going.


John Carnell Crosbie: They all did.


Murray Dorin: This nation is seriously in debt, Mr. Speaker. Business confidence has ebbed. Foreign investors have been scared off and unemployment is painfully high. As soon as the election was called, everyone knew what was going to happen. People did not have to wait. People knew the Liberal govern-
Supply
ment was going to be turfed out. In the third quarter, we had a dramatic 8 per cent increase in our GNP. Just the fact that the election was called inspired confidence in a new government that everyone knew was going to be elected.
The Government can neither wish nor legislate economic growth and meaningful job opportunities into being. The way must be made clear for the private sector to become confident, to flourish, to invest, and thus to create jobs. The Government must move step by step to remove a wide range of obstacles to growth and new jobs. The private sector must be provided with a stable and comprehensive policy environment. The first order of business is to take action on the deficit. The mounting federal debt has become the single most powerful obstacle to growth and private sector job creation. It has been said that the greatest financial invention was compound interest. From an investment point of view, this may be true, but there is another side to compound interest, that seen by the debtor. The federal Government, unfortunately, has fallen into massive indebtedness that now feeds on itself. New interest charges generate new borrowings, which lead to more and more interest charges, an accelerating treadmill of debt.
Even with relatively favourable assumptions about interest rates and continuing economic growth, the deficit in future years was projected to remain in the range of $34 to $38 billion. On the one hand it was clear that we would not just grow our way out of the deficit problem. We could not spend our way out. In fact, we would be getting into an even greater debt problem unless we took action. The public debt, if left unchecked, would reach a staggering total of $410 billion by the end of this decade, the equivalent of $54,000 for every Canadian family. Each year we are borrowing more and more money just to pay the interest on past debts. In so doing, we are imposing a crippling tax burden on future generations.
When, as is currently the case, more than $1 out of every $3 of tax revenue is used to pay the interest on the national debt, then it is clear we are not only compounding past debts, we are compromising the future. The accumulating debt threatens the creation of permanent jobs for unemployed Canadians today and for our children in the years to come, and it does so in a number of different ways. It puts upward pressure on interest rates by raising the expectations of future inflation and by competing for private savings. It limits the Government's ability to meet priority economic and social needs. It symbolizes a state of economic mismanagement that undermines confidence and threatens the job-creating private investment that Canada needs.
That is why, despite the limited time available, the Government had to make a number of tough decisions which were announced on November 8 as part of the economic statement, decisions to reduce expenditures and to increase revenue recovery as a first step in controlling the deficit. As a result of these measures, the projected deficit for 1985-86 has been brought down to $34.9 billion from the projected $37.1 billion. Those figures tell us that much more needs to be done. Clearly, this will not be an easy or a painless task. Some pain, as mentioned

December 3, 1984
Supply
by the motion, has already been felt, but we will have to feel a lot more in trying to correct this mess.


Don Boudria: What is this?


Murray Dorin: As we did with our initial spending reductions, we will continue to do our best to ensure that our decisions are consistent with all our economic renewal objectives, including the principles of greater self-reliance for the private sector and equitable treatment for all regions of the country, not just Conservative or Liberal regions. We will even help NDP regions a little. We will treat NDP regions fairly as well.
Of course, we could have responded to the debt problem differently. One option would have been to try to treat the situation with stimulative financing. Yet nothing short of a massive injection of stimulus would have had any initial effect on growth or employment. With the deficit for this year already $5 billion higher than was projected in last February's Budget, deliberate and massive stimulation would have left us in a very precarious position. The country would have sunk more deeply into the quagmire of national debt, and long-run prospects for growth and employment would have been seriously harmed. The cost in lost investor and consumer confidence would have lost us jobs in future years.
The other option we had was to chop the deficit dramatically and ruthlessly right at the start. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that many of my constituents have told me that that is what we should have done. But this Draconian appproach would have undermined confidence and threatened social cohesion. The costs of adjusting to such a sudden wrench in the economy would have been high, and our collective ability to deal with our structural problems would have been undermined.
We must do all we can to encourage a more dynamic and self-reliant private sector. We must deal not only with the deficit, but also with the tangled web of regulations, subsidies and other forms of government intervention that have been built up over the years.
Too many industries in this country are overprotected. Too many programs designed to assist investment have distorted investment decisions and encouraged the establishment of companies viable only with continued taxpayer support. Too many negative signals have been sent to foreign investors, particularly in the energy sector, and too many government programs carry on long after they have stopped being needed.
In short, the inherent dynamism of the Canadian economy has been eroded by frequently inappropriate and erratic economic policies.
Besides changing government policies, we need to change the way we go about the public's business. We need to take the confrontational tension out of the air which was the hallmark of past governments. We need to sit down and talk to one another.
We have challenged all Canadians to take a hard look at fundamental problems and to break free of the conventional wisdom of the past. The challenge is great for all of us, but particularly so for the private sector. The private sector must
be the driving force behind growth and job creation. I think we in this Government are on our way to giving Canadians the kind of confidence they can and should have in their government.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed to hear repeated Conservative speakers who have addressed the motion before us today saying that they are looking for options. Perhaps they should consider the option which they promised the Canadian electorate several months ago. Also we have heard them talk repeatedly about their top priority being deficit cutting.
In my riding the candidate for that Party never touched the question about deficit cutting. He stressed job creation. I asked an Hon. Member who spoke previously what kind of initiatives would be brought forth in order to create jobs and how they would maintain the fundamental promise which they made from coast to coast during the election campaign.
If I look at my own city in North York, I see quite the opposite. I see the Government cutting a $58 million tax centre which would have created 3,000 jobs-2,000 full-time and
1,000	part-time. It would have created hundreds of jobs in the construction and trade industries. It would have provided a service to the citizens of North York. Where was the job initiative in that cut? Where were the promises to Canadians before September 4 about the multitude of cuts we have witnessed? What happened to the Government on the way to the House of Commons after September 5?
I do not want to hear from the Hon. Member anything about deficit cuts because we did not hear anything about them during the campaign. We heard about job-creation programs which would come overnight from the Government. I would like to hear what the Hon. Member has to say in terms of actual numbers of jobs being created. That is what Canadians want to hear.


Murray Dorin: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to respond to both those points. First he talked about deficit reduction during the election campaign. I assure him that I used every opportunity to talk about deficit reduction. I said that deficit reduction was the only way to get true job creation. I was not referring to job creation in terms of make-work projects using the money of the government and taxpayers. The only way to obtain permanent, long-lasting and meaningful jobs is through job creation by the private sector.
For example, in the job-creation programs which we have funds have been allocated in an attempt to provide people with meaningful jobs and to use that money in the best possible way. That is in contrast to the former government. I am talking about the Canada Works program. For the last several years, my riding has received the minimum allocation under the Canada Works program of $100,000 per year. The reason we continued to receive it was that the former government continued to manipulate the formulas and to use data which were three to five years old to arrive at its formulas. In actual fact, ridings which could rightfully call upon those funds were
December 3, 1984

refused their fair share simply because Conservative Members were representing them.
Under the Canada Works program, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), in allocating funds, used current data so that it would be done on a fair basis. In my riding, the amount of funds received rose from $100,000 to $770,000 this year. A large number of projects is being evaluated by the advisory board. We hope to have some good jobs.
Despite the fact that we have to do that temporarily because of the current situation, those programs are not the answer. I hope that in two, three or perhaps four years from now those programs will not be around any longer. They are simply a band-aid solution. They are not a long-term solution. We have to create true jobs in the private sector. The only way to do that is by giving the private sector room within which to work, and the only way to do so is by reducing the federal Government deficit.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I recognize the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) on a short, succinct question, to which he will receive a short, succinct answer.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how a short, succinct question could do justice to the many myths which were put before the House by the last speaker.
Does the Hon. Member not think that it is important, in talking about the deficit in Canada, to recognize that the personal savings rate in this country is two and a half times that in the United States? Does he not think that it is also important to recognize that every conceivable authority concedes that no crowding out effect is taking place in an economy where investment has declined over the last two years and where there is idle capacity and excess unemployment? Does he not realize that there is no possible way that businesses could be faced with too much competition for funds? In short, is he not applying an argument about the deficit which might make sense in the United States but is entirely different here given the conditions in this country?


Murray Dorin: Mr. Speaker, certainly I realize that the personal savings rate in this country is very high. I will take the Hon. Member's word that it is two and a half times that in the United States. However, the reason it is high is the lack of consumer and investor confidence. People are paying down their debt. They are reluctant to spend it on consumer goods or on business investment because they are afraid of the federal Government deficit getting out of control and of not receiving a return on their money. In fact, they are afraid that there will be hyperinflation. Eventually the Government will have to pay its bill. If it cannot do it by borrowing, it will do it by printing money. Then we would see the kind of inflation which exists in Israel, and the money people have spent will come back to them in worthless dollars. That is the reason for the lack of confidence. We in the Government are trying to instil some confidence in the Canadian consumer and investor.
Supply


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask two very brief, factual questions. With respect to Canada Works summer projects, I gather the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Dorin) vehemently disagrees with the position taken by the Ontario Federation of Students. It has already expressed its concern and dismay over the elimination of the Canada Works summer program. I understood the Hon. Member to imply that moneys which were given out across the nation for Canada Works programs were being given in Liberal areas, somehow to prop up Liberal fortunes.
I wonder if he could answer the Executive Program Director of the Catholic Youth Organization in my community who wrote to his Government because, as a direct result of its decision to cut back on programs, 106 young people, including about 73 disabled and handicapped children, will be unable to attend summer camp in Hamilton this summer. Are these the so-called Liberal supporters to whom the Hon. Member referred, these 73 handicapped children who will be denied summer camp as a direct result of his Government's fiscal cut-backs?


Murray Dorin: Mr. Speaker, under the programs which are now in place funds are being allocated in a manner which is fair to all areas and regions of the country. They are done on the basis of statistics, not votes.
In reply to the question on student summer employment, I do not know what programs may be forthcoming regarding government job creation. However, my hope is that we will not need them. As I said, they are not solutions; they are simply band-aids. What we want is private sector jobs.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief because other Members want to speak to this motion. I congratulate the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) on his excellent motion-"irresponsible cuts, Ministers' apparent inability to manage their Departments and their relations with the provinces and with the public." Of all that the Conservative Government promised, and still promises, it is consultation with the provinces, openness and the stop of those decisions made from on high in Ottawa.
One Member mentioned in this debate cuts in the social housing program. I want to elaborate on that issue as it relates to the lack of consultation with the provincial governments. They were not consulted. If there is one thing a government must do when it cuts back on social housing projects, it is to consult with the provincial governments and the agencies concerned.
The reason is quite simple. It is the provincial government agencies which have to guarantee the occupancy in most of the social program public housing in this country. The provincial governments decide when a housing project will be built and where. I know that CMHC has certain maneuvrability in its programs, but it is the provincial governments that have to act in concert with the federal government.

December 3, 1984
Supply
In the last five years, each provincial government has announced a five-year program. It is common for a provincial government to have a five-year program from senior citizen homes, nursing homes and the like. This announced cut-back of $9.5 million in the social housing area will have an incredible effect on these plans. This $9.5 million may not sound like much money, but this is a cash cut from 1985 to 1986.
The social housing department of CMHC has ongoing responsibilities on 30 and 35 year mortgages. They cannot be stopped. We are looking at a financial cut for the year 1985-86. A senior citizens' home with a $4 million mortgage could pay an additional $100,000 to bring the rate of interest down 2 per cent. That kind of a cut right across this country will involve a substantial reduction in social housing programs right across this country. There was no consultation. I understand that the federal Minister responsible for housing will meet with his provincial counterparts later this week, after the decision was made and after it was handed down from on high by this Government. There was no consultation with provincial governments.
The other area that hits at the heart of the issue was the announced 25 per cent cut in RRAP. That really smacks of discrimination. It discriminates against the poorer regions of this country. This is another example of lack of consultation with the provinces. It is the provincial housing authorities which deliver the RRAP program in high unemployment areas. Apart from the national poverty organization in various high unemployment areas, the provincial housing authorities deliver this program.
I continually criticized the previous government for restricting this program. It started off as a great program. You could qualify depending on the condition of your house. It started to be restricted because the demand was so high and the money was just not there. It reached the point where a family of four could not put on the extra bedroom.
It began with a forgiveness of $3,750 for those whose income was below $11,000. It increased later to $5,000 for those whose income was below $13,500. The provincial housing authorities are now being told that this program is being cut back 25 per cent across the board. The provincial housing authorities, the delivery agents, do not know what to do. One housing authority I checked with said it will meet next week to decide on a public statement. It will not criticize the federal Government in that statement. It cannot do that.
Incredible cuts are being made in transportation with no consultation with the provincial governments affected. Some of these cuts are absolutely outrageous. The motion says they are irresponsible cuts. That is an understatement.
The tourism departments in each province have been working with the federal Government to try to devise a long-term plan to encourage tourism. The Provinces of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island have always wanted a cheap ferry system. They demanded that. Each time CN Marine increased its rates, each provincial government filed an objection with the Canadian Transport Commission.
This Government has laid down in law that CN Marine must cut $20 million from its administration and operations. It is to cut a further $17 million in its gulf ferry runs and coastal boat service without consulting with the provincial governments. No sweat for CN Marine. It announced a 15 per cent rate increase and blamed it on the federal Government. The decision was handed down from on high with no consultation with the affected provincial governments.
One person and a car travelling from North Sydney, Nova Scotia, to Argentia, Newfoundland, must pay $98 or $99-I say it is $100-on the basis of a 15 per cent fare increase. Add to that a reduction in coastal boat service, which was never adequate, not on my coast of Newfoundland or on other coasts. That is the word from on high from this great Government that is going to consult and ensure that everything is open. That is what it has done with regard to transportation.
The Fisheries Loan Board is meeting this week in most of the provinces affected to determine what can be done as a result of the announcement made by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to cut out the national insurance scheme. These fisheries loan boards will have to seize some of the boats next year, have their own insurance scheme or have a subsidy or package arrangement delivered through the private insurance companies. Subsidizing private insurance companies is not in the statement of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He did not consult before the decision was made. He will now be consulting after the decision.
Other policies were announced which will substantially affect provincial budgets. There was no consultation. No one in this House can stand and say that provincial welfare budgets will not be affected by the $200 million cut-back in unemployment insurance. The reason is that it will be more than $200 million. The system which the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) says she is going to put into effect will cut more than $200 million out of the unemployment insurance paid to Canadians. The reasons are quite simple. The restrictions on people drawing unemployment insurance in the country are too great as it is. If an unemployed person does not sit next to his or her telephone every day of the week for eight hours a day, he or she runs the risk of being cut off of unemployment insurance. I notice that the local unemployment offices in high-unemployment areas of the country have taken to heart what the Government has said and are making these phone calls as of two weeks ago. They are phoning fishermen on the northeast coast of Newfoundland asking where they were yesterday at 3 p.m. A fisherman might say: "I was down at the store," and the fellow says: "What store is that?" The fisherman then gives the name of some store in St. John's. The point is that this will affect the provincial governments.
The other part of this motion indicates that the Ministers do not really know what they are doing. On the subject of UIC, how does one cut back on the mobility program for people who
December 3, 1984

are looking for work in other parts of Canada? That mobility program is too tight right now. The people who need help from it cannot get it. If someone wanted to go from Newfoundland to Alberta, he or she would need to have a guarantee of a job for at least a year before he or she could qualify. Then the job has to be advertized by the local manpower office closest to the location of the job. In other words, that is how tight the program is at the present, and yet the Minister of Employment (Miss MacDonald) is now going to cut it. The question is, Mr. Speaker, where she is going to cut it? Ask the Minister, she does not know. Ask the bureaucrats, they say they have not worked it out yet. The same is true for the CMHC cuts to social housing. The Departments do not know about them. That is why this motion is so adequate at this time.
The Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) does not know how she is going to charge people who phone the weather office for weather information. She admitted to the House that she does not know how she is going to do that. Neither does Atmospheric Environment know, but the word has been handed down from on high and the Minister has to follow it. She must have had some prior consultation. She is the most accommodating Minister in the Government. I say that because out of the 1,500 jobs that were supposed to be cut by the financial statement, her Department suffered a cut of 416 jobs. That is unfair to the Department of the Environment.
The Minister of the Environment does not know how she is going to charge people for those phone calls. Granted it will take time, but why should the Minister have it dictated to her that she must charge for weather forecasting information other than the information that is received via the media? It is a difficult proposition. How does one charge someone for making a telephone call to the local weather office if, as the Minister has said, fishermen and those who require the information for health and safety reasons are not to be charged?
It is common for federal government Departments to impose a charge that excludes a certain group of people for a particular reason. How does one determine who are the exclusions? The Minister says that they are working with the telephone companies, but the CRTC will not allow the telephone companies to act as a collection agency. Who is to make the decision that a caller is a fisherman or requires the information for health and safety purposes? The telephone company will not ask those questions. Therefore, if the provision goes through, it will be the local weather forecaster who will have to ask these questions. How is he to know the difference? How is he to know whether someone is a full-time fisherman or a part-time fisherman? Is he going to get a list from the federal Department of Fisheries? Is he going to have a checklist of the families that are eligible and those that are not?
That particular policy was ill advised. We can see the same thing happening in every single section of the Minister's Department. This morning an Hon. Member said that the interpretation centres that are to be cut out are all in Tory ridings. While he was making that statement, I was wondering how people could receive an interpretation of a national park
Supply
on their own. The guided tours have been done away with. We now have what the Minister calls self-guided tours, and she also mentioned volunteer-guided tours. You can imagine, Mr. Speaker, that in the wilds of our national parks, among the bears and amid the trees, there will be self-guided tours. There will be signs all over the place saying: "Seek and ye shall find," or "Enter at your own risk". As I suggested at one time, perhaps this would be a good way to beef up search and rescue despite the cuts that have been announced by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Coates).
The Government also announced that it would increase berthage fees in Canada. What is a berthage fee? I do not know. I am from Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker. We did not have berthage fees there and I will tell you why. The Hon. Jack Davis, who was the Minister of Fisheries some years ago-


André Ouellet: A Liberal.


George Baker: Yes, a Liberal. He made a special agreement with the provincial Minister of Fisheries to exclude the Province from berthage fees. What has happened now? A new Government is in power in Ottawa and, all of a sudden, there is to be a doubling of berthage fees for commercial fishermen and a tripling of berthage fees for sports enthusiasts with their own boats, and this is to be applied equally across the country. The bureaucracy does not know how it is going to apply these berthage fees to Newfoundland. I phoned the Department head and asked him that question. He said: "I do not know. We have not really decided yet". I spoke to the Minister. He said: "Well, we are just examining it now". It has been put down in black and white by the Minister of Finance that these berthage fees are to be applied.
You are indicating to me, Mr. Speaker, that I should conclude soon. I am sorry about that because I had so many things to say, although I was going to be very brief in my remarks.
On August 28, in one 25-minute period, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised $224 million in agricultural expenditures, $50 million in small business initiatives, $268 million in tax relief for the energy sectors, $45 million for restructuring of the fisheries, $150 million in mining investment and tax relief for northern workers, $265 million in health and welfare, $285 million in training and youth employment, $100 million in direct research and development investment, $22 million in assistance to Canadian veterans, $190 million in defence expenditures, $75 million for shipbuilding and $8 million in justice initiatives. In a 25-minute period, the Prime Minister promised about $1.7 billion, give or take $.5 billion. Those are promises that were made in one 25-minute period. Examine what was promised in every province of Canada. Now the Government says it cannot really spend those billions of dollars because the nasty old Liberal government put it in a debt amounting to $34 billion while it figured it was only in debt by $30 billion. Therefore, it cannot spend the $10 billion that was promised to the Canadian people.

December 3, 1984
Supply
In conclusion, let me say that I do hope that the Government will change direction and that it will consult with the provincial governments and the people affected by its cuts in a spirit of openness and fairness. If it does not, it will be stuck with a label that is even worse than the label of the Liberal government. It will certainly not regain the confidence of the Canadian people, which has, as this motion suggests, been lost during the past two months.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments on the speech of the Hon. Member?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker). I was a bit confused by the reaction of some government members when he was decrying the intention of the Government to cut back on relocation moneys for former employees who are seeking work in places across Canada. A number of government members asked what was wrong with that. They thought that relocation fees should be cut back.
Could the Hon. Member first, clarify the Government's cut-back, and, second, reconcile that particular cut-back with the order which was issued by the Prime Minister's Office? That order indicated that when employees in his riding faced lay-off, all possible assistance was to be given to relocate up to
1,000	residents who were losing jobs because of a mine shutdown. I would like the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate to comment on the reaction of government members who have indicated that the relocation program should be cut back. Could the Hon. Member clarify our position on this?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: In particular, could he clarify the position of government members who have indicated that the program should be cancelled, when at the same time the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has no qualms in applying it in his own riding?


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the point is this-


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) on a point of order.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering to which program the Hon. Member is referring when she refers to a program that the Prime Minister-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but that is not a point of order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It was on October 13, 1984. The Prime Minister said-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Please, if the Hon. Member wants to carry on a conversation, she can go behind
the curtain. The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate has the floor.


George Baker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First, anyone who says that there should be cuts in the mobility program of the Department of Employment and Immigration has not talked to his or her constituents who are looking for work. They have not gone through the experience of talking to someone who wants to relocate to another part of Canada where there might be a job available. If they had done that, they would realize that the restrictions which are presently in place discourage people from moving to another province. Then, to turn around and further cut back through a decision made by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Employment and Immigration is absolutely outrageous. If the Prime Minister has ordered the money for that mobility program for his own riding, and if there are any numbers involved, the entire year's budget for that program will be exhausted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) on a short question.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short question. When the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) first got to his feet, he promised to be brief. That was welcome news to anybody who has listened to the Hon. Member before. My question is, why did he mislead the House by announcing he was going to be brief and then continue until the Speaker called him to order?


George Baker: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was going to be very brief. When I started I had four lines of notes, but I just could not stop. What came to mind was the reign of terror in Canada. People are wondering where the axe will fall next.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy).


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, sitting as I do next to an economist from my own city, I hestitate to get into a discussion about deficits. However, having listened to the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Dorin), who has unfortunately departed from the Chamber, I feel no hesitancy in stepping into waters in which I could not otherwise swim.
I may not know much about economics, but I do attempt to have some familiarity with history. I know that emphasis on deficits, notions of restraint and the cutting of social programs has had numerous precedents, not the least of which were the actions taken in the course of the Great Depression which made matters worse. I would suggest that could happen now. Even those people who are least informed about economic principles would understand that the great economic surge in the United States has resulted not from the actual implementation of what has been sloganed, but from the rather significant expenditures in the military area. That area has the function of creating make-work programs. Indeed, what we have is a model whereby one does not attempt to deal with the
December 3, 1984

deficit in the manner suggested by the Hon. Member who spoke previously, but on the basis that certain things can be accomplished by expenditures.
The issue is not one of idle economic speculation of Hon. Members on either side. What I have frequently noted in listening the Hon. Members opposite is that they seldom deal with the issue. They seem more determined to deal with their allegedly perfidious predecessors than with what they are responsible for. It is no wonder they have not chosen to deal with the motion before us.
The motion states that "the Government is in growing disarray". Can anyone seriously challenge the loss of government papers in hotel rooms, interviews in the form of dictation tapes, and contrary views about what regulations should apply to contracts with the press? I would suggest that that indicates there is some measure of disarray.
The motion goes on to suggest that the "growing disarray is demonstrated by its harmful, inadequately considered and irresponsible cuts in government services". Could anyone seriously suggest that the cuts in unemployment insurance will not prove harmful? Can there be any doubt about the harm that has been recognized in the cuts in environmental, scientific and cultural expenditures?
The motion states that the cuts were "inadequately considered". Let us for a moment reflect upon the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) and her reconsideration of ill-considered cuts, such as the herring gull project. A further example could be the hesitancy now evident with respect to CBC cuts. It is now recognized that they were a little too precipitous.
The motion goes on to suggest that there has been, on the part of the Ministers an "inability to manage their departments and their relations with the provinces and with the public". If Members opposite had been rational in their consideration of the content of this motion, they would have inevitably reached the conclusion that the resolution states the facts as they are.
1 really do regret that this kind of motion has appeared before us so early in the session. I was somewhat seduced by the proffering of the 300 promises made by the Leader of the Government during the election campaign. I suppose it reflected the fact that the Leader of the present Government was smiling as he made those promises. 1 should have recalled that his advisers had suggested he not laugh at his own jokes. Having observed the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in these chambers, I would suggest that that advice is probably very useful-now knowing what the Government intends to do- because it may be thought by the poor that the Prime Minister is laughing at them.
We have a Government which promised there would be no confrontation. I suppose that has proven to be partly correct in the sense that the only confrontations of which this House is aware are confrontations over the previously mentioned policies with respect to contact of his Government with the press.
Supply
We have a Government which promised consultation. I believe every previous speaker referred to the lack of appropriate consultation with the provinces on a number of issues. But it seems to me there are other areas where there is a dangerous failure to consult. I have in mind the numerous actions taken with respect to science and technology. Clearly on the basis of any number of reports in the press, these decisions were taken without any consultation whatever. I cannot possibly believe that there could be no reaction from the government side unless those Hon. Members on the government side who are scientists have been muzzled. I cannot believe that scientists would have allowed such cuts as the herring gull project cut and the toxicology centre cuts, and so on.
We have a Government which has chosen only one of the two goals usually chosen for itself by society. On the one hand, there is the pursuit of social justice. On the other hand, there is the pursuit of prosperity and economic growth. Usually the people look to government to pursue the goal of social justice while it is the role of business to pursue the goal of economic growth and prosperity. It is obvious that this Government has chosen not to perform the proper function of government but to place its emphasis on the goals of business, thus separating social justice from the issue of prosperity and growth. This is marked by a whole litany of buzz words, one of which is "restraint", which really means, "let the poor eat confidence". We hear phrases like, "Cut the deficit. Cut unemployment insurance benefits. Cut government spending. Cut social programs". The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that every time there has been an attempt to cure the ills of society by pursuing prosperity at the expense of social justice, we have suffered. Every depression, every recession could be attributed in a very large measure to the fact that someone has chosen the route of abandoning social justice in the pursuit of prosperity at any price.
The Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Dorin) said we must have short-term pain. As I look around me, I suspect there is not a soul in this room who is going to experience any pain whatsoever as the Government pursues this course. That Party talks a good game but it should experience the cuts in unemployment insurance benefits itself and try to cope, as does the lady who wrote to me recently saying she presently lives on $300 a month while paying $350 for housing and food.
This Government says that confidence is going to cure everything; let the poor eat confidence. But this Government is not even consistent. If it is going to pursue the kind of economic goal about which it talks, then one would have to consider the pillars of private sector growth. These pillars are research and development, innovation, technology diffusion, labour markets, human resources and adaptation to technological change. If one contemplates those so-called pillars, Mr. Speaker, then I believe one is driven to examine the economic statement, and the Government's agenda, and perhaps look for the steps which need to be taken in order to address the needs dictated by those pillars. One might contemplate the possibility of there being some reference to the necessity of having a broadly educated work force. One might look for suggestions

December 3, 1984
Supply
on how to increase the opportunities for young people, not in narrow, specified areas of training but with the kind of broad education and versatility which will be necessary for our economic future. One might have thought that Government would try to find some way to ensure that the offspring of the poor and of minorities would be encouraged to avail themselves of the kind of education which the great economic future which is promised will require. Yet nowhere in all of the verbosity which accompanied this great agenda does the Government deal with the issue of post-secondary education. There is some reference to transfer payments and this is elaborated upon, not in the documents themselves but in subsequent statements, to the effect that those transfer payments will have to be subject to restraint.
We have heard the glad tidings about youth. Youth are going to have an articulate spokesman. But in the economic statement we find that Summer Canada is to be cut by $85 million, and even that statement is misleading. That is the base funding. The fact is that the Government's so-called perfidious predecessor spent twice that amount on Summer Canada in 1983 and 1984.
We cannot have prosperity at the expense of the poor, the youth, single women, or minorities. We heard the Minister's reaction to the Abella report last week. There were vague phrases addressed to some 117 recommendations. But the Government could not see the forest for the trees, Mr. Speaker. If it looked at the clear recommendations of that report, it would realize that if we are to achieve justice for women, native people, the visible minorities and the disabled, there are certain specific actions which must be taken. Those actions certainly do have economic repercussions. But the Government casts aside any of those issues which have anything whatever to do with social justice in order to ensure that those who most strongly support the Government will benefit from whatever actions it may pursue in the interests of prosperity and that prosperity otherwise will dribble down to the rest of us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please! It being 6 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 62, proceedings on the motion have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I very much regret that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) is not in the House to hear what I have to say concerning the immigration target level of 85,000 to
90,000	set for 1985. I had expressed my feelings about its inadequacy, and I spoke not only for myself but on behalf of my Party which has announced itself in favour of a target for 1985 of at least 100,000.
The reason I am sorry the Minister is not here is that I wanted to explain to her how the target of 85,000 to 90,000 damages the reunification of families process. She did not seem to understand that, from the answers she gave to the questions I asked. She seemed to feel that all that was needed for families was to establish the relationship and they could immigrate.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, that is true as far as it goes but it is only true for immediate children, parents and grandparents of an individual Canadian applicant seeking to bring those family members to Canada. I was astonished the Minister did not know that the relatives who are wanted in Canada are not in that category. That is so in the great majority of cases I have in my office, and I am sure the same is true for all Members of Parliament. It is the brothers and sisters, sons and daughters who may be married or over the age of majority, nephews, nieces and others, who in every sense of the word, other than in the Minister's understanding, have to be considered to be family, and they ought to be able to be reunited in Canada, particularly at a time of economic growth.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the Government has admitted that it does not really know what to do. Why do 1 say that? The Minister herself said she felt more study was justified in deciding whether higher levels should be set for Canada's immigration target for 1985. If that is the way she feels about it, I urge the Government to keep the rate as it was, at least while these studies are being done. Do not lower it any further. It would be preferable to increase it recognizing that there is economic growth and that immigrants make a tremendous economic contribution in times of economic growth.
They do this in two ways, Mr. Speaker. First, they are consumers from the moment they arrive. It is winter in Canada now and they will need winter clothes. They need a place to live. They need to be fed. All of this puts extra demand in the Canadian economy. They have their families assisting them to become consumers when they first arrive.
Of course, much more important than their role as extra demand in the marketplace is the role they play and always have played in the labour market. They are the most willing workers in the country. They are anxious to establish themselves and obtain Canadian experience. I have always noted, in my years in business and in practice in Toronto, that immigrants are at least as willing as the rest of us to take any job to get started.
December 3, 1984

I regret very much that at a time when the Government itself is putting forward evidence of those who cannot get employees to do the jobs that need to be done in Canada, the Minister would take a hard-nose attitude towards immigrants.
Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister makes a determination of what the proper level is, that affects the way the Department operates around the world. If they are told that their target is lower, then the resources allocated are lower and the pace of work is less. In each of our immigration offices across the country there will be a less open attitude, rather than the more open attitude which there should be in a time of economic growth. That is very regrettable.
I note that according to the statutes, the Minister can come back as often as she wants to change that target. I would like her to reconsider that, as the Government has reconsidered so many of its mistakes in its first three weeks in Government. Let it reconsider this mistake also, and come back with an immigration level that is realistic, compassionate and humane in view of the immigration situation.
It was suggested that when I spoke today I should be very certain to speak to Canadians who themselves are not affected by immigration. Let us say there are some who do not have relatives they want to assist to come to Canada as immigrants. They should bear in mind that there must be someone around to pay their old age pensions when they reach 65 years of age. If one looks at the demographic studies, it will not be people who are born to the people already here who will pay. If we are going to have the kind of base population that we need to validate the commitments we are making to senior citizens and others in our society, we need more people in this country. The Liberal Party has always stood for those principles.
I am very disappointed that the Government has taken a kind of lead from the tough times of the last few years and put on the clamps. Let the minister and her hench persons reconsider that policy.
[ Translation]


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, I shall if I may reply on behalf of the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss Flora MacDonald) to the Hon. Member's question.
Contrary to what the Hon. Member was saying, I think the present levels of immigration announced by the Minister certainly do not reject the principle that immigrants when they arrive here in Canada are assets to our country and represent a vital stimulus for our economy. However, in his supplementary, my hon. friend urged us to be careful because we should also consider the repercussions immigration levels may have. Immigrants not only provide a considerable economic stimulus, but we will also have certain obligations to these people later on, and that is why we must be circumspect in this area.
Adjournment Debate
According to the annual report on future immigration levels tabled last November 19, it is now expected that the number of immigrants admitted will range between 85,000 and 90,000. It also indicates that the Government intends to revert this fall to a planning cycle more in tune with the future, after full reconsideration of the immigration policy. As the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) assumed her new responsibilities only last September, she did not have enough time to make an in-depth study of future immigration levels, and that is why she announced the levels for 1985 only and decided to wait for the assessment of future cases.
Still, it has been decided that two initiatives might be taken immediately as evidence of support for immigration. First, government-sponsored immigrants will increase by 1,000 in 1985, which reverses the declining trend of the last four years. Then, a $500,000 or half-a-million increase in funding for the immigrant settling and development program to $3.6 million, to reflect the increased needs of immigrants, especially those who have been living in Canada for more than three years. Even though the trend to lower immigration levels over these last three years could not be immediately reversed, it has been indicated that there would be increases next year in both areas.
For a large part, reactions to the report mistakenly concerned the current level considered as an indication of the Government's attitude towards immigration. Clearly, the Government cannot be judged on the basis of that report. The report that must be tabled under the existing statute sets a provisional position by announcing a one-year level, in order to allow for a significant review of the future levels and policies which will have an impact on the number of immigrants that can be admitted into Canada.
The levels announced in the recently tabled report are not pre-established maximums. Rather, they are estimates of the number of immigrants that will be admittable under current policies. For more immigrants to be admitted, not only must artificially high projections be submitted, as has been done over the past few years, but also policies must be significantly changed. Policy changes having-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired. The Hon. Member for York West.


VISIBLE MINORITIES-INTERNMENT OF JAPANESE CANADIANS DURING WORLD WAR II. (B) DISCUSSIONS WITH JAPANESE CANADIAN COMMUNITY
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, during the debate on this adjournment motion I would like to focus some attention on two questions I asked during Question Period on November 23. I appreciate that the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Murta) has taken the time to come here this evening.

December 3, 1984
Adjournment Debate
As I mentioned earlier in the debate today, I was somewhat worried about the priority the Minister had given to the whole question of multiculturalism. I said in my earlier remarks that the Throne Speech in terms of multiculturalism was quite bankrupt. I feel strongly about that.
During the campaign of several months ago our various ethnocultural communities were promised a multicultural expressway to equal opportunity and greater facilitation in this whole process called Canada. Within that multicultural sphere I would like to concentrate this evening on those questions I asked concerning the Japanese-Canadian situation.
My questions were two-pronged. The first relates to the whole matter of an apology. The second is the issue of compensation. The Government has made this a priority. We were told during the campaign, and certainly following the campaign, that priority was to be given to the matter of apologizing to the Japanese Canadian community for the policy undertaken by our government during the Second World War.
I have doubts about that priority because three months have passed and we have not had any form of announcement in this House on when an apology will be forthcoming. Our Leader said quite articulately in his opening comments in this House that we favoured and all-party resolution that would apologize for those things that occurred during the Second World War. There is no question that a resolution of this kind would move through the House very rapidly. Why has it not come? Why is it being held up? Has the mechanism been swallowed up with time and consultation?
The second question about compensation is also worrisome. In my discussions with the Japanese Canadian community, the process is as equally important as the substance. Japanese Canadians would like some input into the whole process of determining what kind of compensation is appropriate. They would like a committee to look at the alternatives. They were promised by the current Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that a committee would look into the various features the compensation would take, to whom, and when.
On several occasions during Question Period I put questions to the Minister, but was unable to determine when this apology would be tabled in the House. Why has a committee not been formed? What kind of a committee was the Minister thinking about when he was out on the hustings and said that "We are committed to a committee"? What kind of membership will it have? Will there be members of the Japanese Canadian community on this committee? Will there be Parliamentarians from the three Parties on this committee? Will the committee travel across the country to touch base with the various elements?
This is not just a Japanese Canadian matter. The Minister knows full well there are various ethnocultural communities also supporting a resolution to this Japanese Canadian situation. The resolution of this issue is fundamental to their communities; their communities also in a small way have suffered similar experiences.
I mentioned that Japanese Canadians value the process as much as the substance. I have been quite worried about some of the discussions which have taken place. I have received reports that a chair of Japanese studies was being considered by the Minister as compensation. I asked the Minister about it in the House. He denied that it was a consideration. Only a few days later in an article in The Toronto Sun he was quoted as saying that that was being considered. My purpose is not to criticize or to make any value judgment on a chair of Japanese studies.
Another project came to my attention involving a several million dollar educational institute. I am not questioning whether that is right or wrong, appropriate or inappropriate. My concern is that those considerations are being percolated through the Department in isolation of Japanese Canadians, in isolation of this Parliament and in isolation of Canadians from coast to coast.
Also my concern is about the process. The Japanese Canadian community is very concerned that it be included in the process. To date I think it fair to say that Japanese Canadians have been somewhat frustrated about the process. They yearn for an announcement from the Minister or from the Government which would in fact keep the commitment they were given during the election.
I notice that I have 60 seconds or less to summarize this matter. I see that the Minister of State for Multiculturalism is present in the House. When can we expect an apology in terms of time frame? I am not playing politics because it is a sensitive issue, but after three months someone has to pick up the pieces and begin to work with them. When will an apology be forthcoming? Will a committee to study compensation be organized or established? My concern is that Japanese Canadians are being excluded from a process which largely deals with their community.


Hon. Jack Murta (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, I always listen to the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) as he is knowledgeable in the area of multiculturalism. He comes from a very important part of the country which is immersed in multiculturalism; of course the City of Toronto.
The Hon. Member made two or three accusations which I will deal with before dealing with the Japanese Canadian issue. He indicated that we were bankrupt of ideas because nothing had really happened over the last three months. I am sure he knows that that is not the case.
My Department, my staff and myself have been moving in a number of areas. We are looking at a federal-provincial conference, of which the Hon. Member undoubtedly is aware. It will be the first one held in the area of multiculturalism. We have been dealing with racism through consultation with the chiefs of police in the country. We are looking at strengthening the appointment process which was sadly lacking after the last government was in power. We are moving to strengthen the
December 3, 1984

Department in some very significant ways. We are broadening the base of multiculturalism in terms of the areas we want to address and in terms of mainstreaming multiculturalism.
Of course we are addressing the Japanese Canadian issue, the whole question of compensation and apology. The basic reason the apology has not been forthcoming to this point in time is that there has been a lot of consultation. I have met with Japanese Canadians in Vancouver, Winnipeg and Toronto. We have discussed the matter at length. I am not exactly satisfied about the direction in which we should go, and certainly I will be looking for further consultation in the future. There is no question that there will be an acknowledgement in terms of what happened to that important community. Of course the Government will act. The question of compensation is important. It is being discussed at the present time. As I have previously said in the House, the Hon. Member will be one of the first persons to know our progress in this process. He may know before it is public. In fact, I hope he will know because I intend to talk with him and take him into my confidence on this matter.


AIRPORTS-AUTOMOBILE RENTAL CONCESSIONS
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the question I wish to raise today concerns the rules and regulations of the Department of Transport which are destroying the second largest car rental company in Canada, Holiday Rent-A-Car. This company is fighting for its very survival because government regulations are preventing Holiday franchise holders from bidding for space at some of Canada's larger airports. This comes from a Government supposedly dedicated to fair and open competition and deregulation.
In a nutshell, this is the situation. Many Holiday franchise holders are being prevented from bidding for airport counter space on December 7 because previous Holiday franchise holders are in arrears to the Department. The Government regulations that make present Holiday franchise holders responsible for past debts is unfair. Certainly this principle does not exist in normal business practice or law. Let me give an example.
If 1 had a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise and went into bankruptcy, owing money to the bank and property taxes, under this present Government regulation no one would be allowed to open a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet until my debts were paid.
That is an unheard of business or legal principle. However, this is what is occurring at Canadian airports. The Minister must realize that this is unfair. In fact, when he was in opposition, he asked the former Minister of Transport to change the regulations.
In his reply to my question in the House, the Minister was incorrect when he stated "The Holiday Rent-A-Car organization is in considerable arrears". Holiday Rent-A-Car does not owe the Government-individual past franchise holders do.
Adjournment Debate
These are the people with whom the Government had a contract.
It is ludicrous that the Minister expects Holiday franchise holders in Vancouver, for example, to pay past arrears for people who now own the Budget franchise. The person who now owns the Budget franchise was the previous Holiday franchise holder in Vancouver. Under government regulations, the present franchise holder is expected to pay off those debts. That is ludicrous. I repeat, it is a principle that you do not find in normal business practice.
We are not asking the Government to write off these debts, but to collect them from the people that owe them. We are asking the Minister to stop holding the Holiday organization responsible and penalizing them to the point that they will go into bankruptcy. We plead with the Government to postpone the December 7 deadline and to refer this matter to a subcommittee of the Transport committee.
This is a complex issue. The best forum to deal with this is a subcommittee of the Transport committee which could call witnesses and hear testimony. A group of Members of Parliament from all sides of the House, hearing the evidence and considering the situation as it exists, will render a fair recommendation to the Minister and to this House. I therefore urge the Minister and the Government to consider these suggestions and proposals.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make the following observations to my friend, the Hon. Member foi Regina East (Mr. de Jong). Over the past two years, the Department of Transport has undertaken an extensive review of the 1979 airport vehicle rental concession policy to ensure its equitabili-ty and the provision of an open and competitive access to the airport market.
The policy, in particular the arrears provision, was seen by some to be too restrictive. This provision prevented any person or corporation in arrears to the Crown, or any person or corporation using the trade name or style of a company in arrears to the Crown from being awarded a vehicle rental contract at any Transport Canada airport until full payment of all arrears is received. The provision was established because of significant difficulties that arose as a result of the 1976 tender calls where some limited companies overbid and walked away from their airport debts.
In the 1979 tender call, the Department provided historical sales data that ensured prospective concessionaires would be aware of the dimensions of the market so that they could govern their bids accordingly. The Department, through these provisions, thus effectively served notice that it, like any other business, could not permit companies which were unable to pay their arrears to bid. Indeed, for Transport Canada not to insist on payment of rentals is unfair to competitive car rental companies and, in fact, I suppose, does a disservice to Canadian taxpayers.

December 3, 1984
Adjournment Debate
In order to provide Holiday and other companies in financial difficulties with some measure of relief, the policy was amended in October 1984, such that the prohibition against companies and trade names in arrears was applied on a site specific basis only. That is, a company in arrears at a particular airport may bid at that airport if all arrears are paid. In order to further facilitate entry into the airport market, the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) further agreed that such rental arrears could be paid over the five-year term of the next contract.
The Minister of Transport tried on several occasions to reach a negotiated settlement with Holiday Rent-a-Car. These efforts have not been successful thus far. Nevertheless, individual Holiday operators not in arrears are most welcome to tender for new contracts at Transport Canada airports.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.26 the House adjourned.

Tuesday, December 4, 1984