1985-03-25

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before putting the motion in the name of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) and since today is the final allotted day, the House will go through the usual procedure to consider and dispose of the Supply Bills. In view of recent practices, do Hon. Members agree that the Supply Bills be distributed now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time on a point of order to seek the unanimous consent of the House with respect to a statement to be made by the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) which relates to the situation of the Canadian Commercial Bank.
There have been discussions with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), with the Leader of the New Democratic Party and in turn with the financial critics and ultimately with the House Leader of each Party. The Government feels that this is a very sensitive issue in terms of the situation as it relates to the Canadian Commercial Bank. We would like to have a parliamentary opportunity at the earliest possible moment, without in any way impinging upon or negatively affecting the rights of the Opposition on an Opposition Day, to make a statement.
I have put forward a proposition to Opposition House Leaders by which a statement could be made with respect to this financial institution. I have indicated that we would be prepared to sit into the lunch hour in order to ensure that no time is lost on the Opposition Day. I will not go any further, except to say that I think it is a sensitive issue respecting a financial institution. There should be an opportunity for the Minister to address the House of Commons by way of statement and for questions, an opportunity which would not be available in Question Period. This is why we suggest this particular course of action. I am quite prepared to proceed at this time with the Minister of State for Finance or, indeed, to proceed at one o'clock this afternoon so that it will not in any
way negatively affect the Opposition Day discussion of the motion in the name of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau).
I put that proposition to the House and would like to see whether we could obtain its agreement with respect to a very important statement to be made this morning.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the request of my hon. friend with respect to the desire of the Government to make a statement about the situation of the Canadian Commercial Bank. Notice of the desire of the Government to make a statement about this matter at eleven o'clock this morning reached me only about 40 minutes ago. We have been reflecting on that request. Bearing in mind the sensitivity of the situation and what the Government House Leader said about the importance of being able to put questions on the matter in a parliamentary way, it is our preference that the statement be made at the usual time at three o'clock. This would give our spokespersons a chance to review the statement in advance-we have not seen it-and to reflect upon our questions.
I point out to the House that early this morning a rather detailed press release on this was issued by the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall). That press release has also been the subject of news reports as early as nine o'clock this morning. I am not complaining about that; I am just saying that it is not necessary to have a statement in the House at eleven o'clock to inform either the public or the House of the situation. Therefore, under the circumstances outlined by my hon. friend with respect to the sensitivity of this situation, I think it would be most helpful to the House, in terms of the kind of response we could give to the Government statement and the kinds of questions we could ask, if we had time to reflect upon the matter until the usual time for making statements on motions at three o'clock this afternoon.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the matter has been resolved in any event. I can well understand the position put by the House Leader of the Official Opposition. However, in the circumstances, if unanimous consent could have been sought, we certainly would not have withheld it.


Mr. Speaker:: I am in difficulty. The Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) sought the floor to seek leave on a matter of unanimous consent which technically has not been granted. I find it difficult to accept any more statements on the point of order, given that the request arose under a request for unanimous consent.

March 25, 1985
Supply


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides) moved:: That this House regrets that the Government has further postponed a budget thereby assuring that it will have gone more than eight months in office without taking any concrete action to create jobs and to establish the kind of economic confidence necessary for the realization of the hopes and aspirations of all Canadians, in particular, women, young people, farmers, fishermen, the elderly, natives and, above all, the almost one-and-one-half million unemployed.

He said: Mr. Speaker, we believe it is our duty to draw the attention of this House and of all Canadians to the incredible way the Government has been putting off the formulation of budgetary proposals in a budget speech, to inform Canadians of the direction it intends to give the economy of this country.
The Government's refusal to act has created a climate of uncertainty that is having a disastrous impact on job creation. The Conservative Government's reluctance to bring down its first budget is causing the business community to put off decisions it would otherwise have made, until it knows what the new Government's fiscal policy will be. Because of the Government's hesitation in choosing between job creation and fighting the deficit, many investment decisions have been postponed.
Mr. Speaker, this motion of censure is entirely justified. Imagine, the leader of a political party who had solutions to all the problems of this country during the election campaign not so long ago, and who had decided to wait up to eight months before bringing down his first budget! Imagine, the leader of a government who only a few months ago, last summer, was promising Canadians important fiscal measures including a complete change in oil and gas taxation what is referred to as the PGRT; removal of the tax on capital gains made by a farmer upon selling his operation; increased funding for the forestry industry, especially for reforestation . . . The same leader who proposed new taxation procedures for petro-chemi-cals, and, Mr. Speaker, you are aware of the impact of such a change, namely, abolishing the 9 per cent sales tax on gas and diesel fuel used in all primary industries; improving tax benefits for forestry workers, especially those using advanced technology; and providing tax benefits to stimulate investment in the mining industry.
Mr. Speaker, these were only a few of the 330 election promises made by the Progressive Conservative Party during the election campaign. One may well ask why the Government is unable to take four or five of these promises-and I have read a few-implement them and bring down a budget so that the business community, labour and all social partners will know what this Government's economy policy is. This kind of delay inevitably raises a certain number of questions.
The most important question of all is whether the present Government formed by the Progressive Conservative Party is still confident about the promises it made during the election campaign. The second question is, whether the delay in bringing down the Budget is due to the fact that the Government is divided and has been unable to make a choice among the contradictory promises made during the election campaign. The sincerity of their campaign promises, internal divisions all this leaves the impression that the Conservatives spent all their energy on election strategy, and, after they won, did not know what to do with their power.
This point was made very clearly by editorial writer Jeffrey Simpson in a very well researched article published in the latest issue of Saturday Night, and I shall, if I may, quote part of this text. This is what Mr. Simpson said:

What distinguished these Tories from their predecessors was their careful planning for winning an election and taking power. What they would do once in office, however, remained as much a mystery to them as to anyone else. How would they use their mandate? To what strategic ends, apart from re-election? How would they tackle the deficit, combat unemployment, improve trade relations with the United States, pursue arms reduction, raise the defence budget, entice Quebec into the Constitutional Accord, rejig social programs, reduce regional disparity and advance the status of women?
The Conservative answers to these and to many other questions were swathed in the comforting rhetoric of an election campaign whose organizational efficiency and astonishing result masked the persistent and awkward divisions in the Party.
It is not a Liberal who wrote those lines but a very senior observer of the House of Commons Press Gallery.
It is unbelievable that it will have taken eight months for a Budget to be tabled. This in itself would not be so damaging to the Canadian economy if it were not for the fact that this is a new Government. This new Government has made so many contradictory promises during the election campaign that no one knows exactly the direction it will take. Will it fight the deficit on all fronts and meet the demands of big business or will the new Government take the contrary route along with labour and social groups and fulfil the numerous promises made during the campaign? A choice must be made and this is why a new Government must present its budget in the shortest period of time possible. The new Budget becomes the framework, the orientation and the new direction.
For a Government that has promised changes, it becomes even more important that it table its first Budget as soon as possible. In the meantime, businessmen, the labour movement and social groups are in a wait and see situation. This is particularly true of those in the business community who have investment projects and want to see what the new fiscal framework will be. Is the Government going to increase taxes? If so, those new taxes may affect the profitability of business investments. Is the Government going to cut funding to the arts even more? The film producers and the artistic world told us last week about all of their problems. Will they be able to invest before knowing if other cuts will affect their particular businesses?

Mr. Speaker, putting off the first Budget until late May has serious economic implications, and we on this side of the
March 25, 1985

House fail to understand why the new Government is dragging its feet and does not unveil its economic and tax policy, what with the million and a half unemployed who are waiting for the jobs promised by the Government.
The Government gives two reasons to justify the delay: its desire to consult and the legacy of the previous administration.
The Official Opposition has nothing against consultation. The Liberal Government had also set up a consultation conference, admittedly not as elaborate as the last one. So much so that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) tried last Thursday to explain the costs of his weekend conference by comparing them with those of the consultation conference convened by the former Liberal Government.
Although we are not against consultation, it must be said that the widest ranging consultation possible was held last September 4 when Quebecers as a whole voted for this Government and gave it an overwhelming majority. They voted for a Government, for a political party, for a political program. So why, after consulting the people of Canada, consult another 136 Canadians even before drafting a budget? As I said earlier, would it be that the Government does not really believe in the policies it proposed to the people of Canada? If only the Government had seen the weekend economic summit as a golden opportunity to table three or four policy papers to explain the various components of the problem confronting the nation and to propose hypothetical solutions, three or four policy guidelines, and then sought the advice of those leaders to know which policy would most likely produce a genuine solution to the problem! No, the Government chose to remain uncommitted.
As expected, there was something for everybody. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) found himself in agreement with those who advocate higher budget expenditures and others who strongly support a lower deficit. The only participant who nearly got rapped on the knuckles was one who dared voice mildly critical remarks against our Prime Minister's pal, President Reagan of the United States.
In fact, the only real issue on which consensus was reached-and I think the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) will agree with me-was the petition signed by 87 people urging the withdrawal of the unemployment insurance program amendments because they affect too many Canadians. I say without reservation that the summit conference was first and foremost an exercise in public relations. Most observers on Parliament Hill in Ottawa agree that the Mulroney Government operates on the basis of opinion polls.
[DOT] (M20)

Yet the Mulroney Government is a Government which is prepared to take action only according to the polls. For the Prime Minister, that is what really counts.
Supply
Allan Gregg, President of Decima Research, the pollster of the Progressive Conservative Party, is more important than the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) or any other member of the Cabinet. What does Allan Gregg say about consultation? I would like to quote Mr. Gregg as he was reported in the Saturday Night magazine. He said:
We interviewed groups until they were coming out of our ears ... but there is no consensus on what should be done. We are at point "A" and people sense we should get to point "C" but there is no agreement on point "B". The people have bought the Conservative agenda but not the Conservative philosophy.
That is what the pollster for the Progressive Conservative Party said. Sure, Mr. Gregg is more important than the Minister of Finance and many other members of the Cabinet! What does Mr. Gregg say about the consultation process? In the same article he went on to say:
-the consultative process would allow the Government to share the blame if results did not match expectations.
He continued:
"The Government certainly hopes it can bring people around through public education", said Gregg, "and Mulroney praises himself of being able to get people to do things his way. But if he fails, the Government will be able to share responsibility".
What Mr. Gregg has said is that it is more important to follow the polls than to follow the advice of the Minister of Finance. For those who do not want to hear, there is nothing we can do. But for those who want to understand, and for those who want to read the facts and accept that two plus two equals four, the whole exercise of the Ottawa summit was to use the Canadian television network so that the Prime Minister of Canada could share the blame of his failure if the Budget does not work, and keep all the praise for himself if it succeeds.
I would say that the whole process of the Ottawa summit conference during the weekend was a public relations exercise for the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister. The summit was designed as a tool to make other people share the blame for the failures of the Government. The summit and the consultation process were invented by the pollster of the Conservative Party, using Canadian taxpayers' money, to fulfil a partisan objective. All those who participated in good faith at the summit will realize sooner rather than later that they were used for partisan purposes.
As I previously stated, there was only one example of consensus at the summit. That was the petition which was signed by 87 participants asking that the changes presented by the Mulroney Government to the unemployment insurance program be revised, because as designed it would affect too many beneficiaries.

Mr. Speaker, the second reason which was given to explain the delay in bringing down a budget is the financial mess handed down by the Liberal Government. Let us see what does this legacy involve. I shall try to provide a few indications from a paper tabled by the Minister of Finance, and I imagine that these figures will not be questioned as they are those of the Conservative Government itself.

March 25, 1985
Supply
Let us look first at the general economic growth. In 1984, the Domestic National Product increased at a rate of 4.7 per cent. Mr. Speaker, this was the best performance of the Canadian economy since 1976. Still referring to the same document, if we compare the growth of the Canadian economy to that of the member countries of the Summit, in other words, the major industrialized countries, we find that our rate of growth was third in the world in 1984 and second in 1983, right after that of the United States. Mr. Speaker, that kind of financial situation is not really that bad!
In the field of employment, always according to the figures contained in this paper, we find that the number of jobs increased by 2.5 per cent in 1984. If we compare Canada's performance to that of the major industrialized countries, according to the figures of the Department of Finance, we were second in the world, immediately after the United States, and in 1983, we were third.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives can complain all they want, but being in second and third place among all industrialized countries with regard to job creation is not that bad in my humble opinion.
If we look at what happened in the employment sector during the period immediately preceding the election of this Government, we find that, in 1984, the Canadian economy produced 108,000 new jobs during the second quarter, 67,000 in the third quarter and 88,000 in the last quarter. Once more, as the Canadian economy had just been through one of the worst economic crises in the history of the Western world after the crisis of the thirties, it seems to me that a quarterly average of 87,000 new jobs created just before the coming to power of this Government is not that bad a legacy either.
If we look at the level of inflation, we see that, thanks to the 6 and 5 policy, Canada had a remarkable performance which compares quite well with that of other industrialized countries. In addition, when this Government took over, the rate of inflation was about 3.4 per cent, one of its lowest levels ever. Once more, Mr. Speaker, this is not such a bad legacy.
There is also the trade balance and the record surpluses in the trade balance of over $20 billion in 1983 and 1984. I could refer to other economic sectors, such as foreign investment, to show that the performance of the former Liberal Government did not represent such a terrible legacy. On the other hand, I understand that it can be useful in the short term to distort the facts to try to gain a few points in the polls, but while this can be useful in the short term, in the long term, it creates a false image of our country and this discourages Canadian and foreign investments.
Mr. Speaker, we do have a major problem that should be solved, and that is the deficit. However, before they blame the former Government, I would like the Conservative Members and the Minister of Finance to tell us what they would have
done in 1982 when we were going through one of the worst economic crises ever without increasing the deficit. Would the Minister of Finance have withdrawn from under the unemployed our social security net which took years to develop? Would the Minister of Finance have refused to implement job creation programs simply to avoid a deficit, he who has just approved budgets when we are in a period of economic recovery? I suggest that the deficit theory preached by the Minister of Finance is generally valid, but it becomes unappropriate in a larger context and over a longer period. In addition, when these people try to prove that the deficit we have in 1985 is due only to external factors, they forget that we had an economic crisis in 1982.
Those people who are now criticizing and saying that it is because of the financial situation they inherited that they cannot introduce a budget, where were they last summer? Why did they go around the country making promises which, according to certain Members of the present Cabinet, would cost $20 billion? Mr. Speaker, there are certain facts which should be underlined. Since this Government had answers and proposed a change only a few months ago during the election campaign, this is the question I ask now: why wait eight months. This is unheard of because in the meantime life goes on. And looking back at the week-end conference we see that the business community was in favour of lowering the deficit while social groups and labour said this was no top priority. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, depending on the direction that will be taken now, what is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) liable to choose, employment or the deficit? This will have an impact on taxation. This will affect consumer purchasing power, and it is my view, Mr. Speaker, that such a delay in bringing down a Budget will be bad for the over-all Canadian economy. We, of the Official Opposition, want to have that major failure brought to the attention of the public.
[DOT] (M30)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments?


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, by analyzing the figures for the month of January, the Hon. Member will appreciate that for every dollar this country spent it had to borrow 36 cents. In other words, it took in only 64 cents in taxes for each dollar spent. Even if we had full employment, everyone in the country working flat out, we would still have a massive deficit.
That clearly points out the need for a tremendous amount of consultation among all groups in the country so that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) can come up with new and different methods of handling the problems. Although the consultation will have taken some eight months by May, surely that is not a great length of time, particularly when we did have on November 8 a rather comprehensive financial statement. A Budget means change and surely before changes are made there should be consultation with all of the players in the
March 25, 1985

economy, particularly in view of the massive amount of fiscal problems the country faces.
Is there something wrong with consultation? Is there something wrong with trying to get some sort of consensus as to how we should proceed with the problems? This is a problem for everyone.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I said in my speech that there is nothing wrong with consultation. But I also said that we in this country had the largest consultation process that anyone can have, and that was the election. We had that consultation and you, ladies and gentlemen, have been elected on promises you made. We now need action. That is the point of view expressed in this motion. After the largest consultation anyone can have through the election, more consultation now is not a substitute for action. What we need is action now.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for his most interesting and substantive speech. I have a few questions that I want to ask. In view of the delay by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in bringing down a Budget, in view of those nine months of dilly-dallying, in view of the commitment to create jobs, jobs and more jobs, could the Hon. Member tell me if, in researching the subject, he has compared budget tablings over the previous years to see whether there had been such lengthy delays in Canada before? And second, could he comment on the Government boasting that they have created 100,000 jobs since they came to power on September 4? Could he tell me how they compare with the previous administration, let us say in recent years?


Raymond Garneau: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I did not introduce this motion without having done some research, because if recent history had shown that most new governments after coming to power had waited eight or nine months, there would be a tradition which certainly would not justify a motion such as this one. Indeed I researched that, and I found out that when a Liberal government-1 did not go as far back as the early days of Confederation but to the early 60's-
Even if we except Mr. John Diefenbaker's election on June 10, 1957, which was almost immediately followed by another general election in which Mr. Diefenbaker obtained a large Conservative majority, there was a two month delay between the election and the tabling of the budget. When the Liberal Party was elected in 1963, the budget came two months and five days after the election of a new government.


Miss MacDonald:: Withdrawn right after!


Raymond Garneau: When on June 25, 1968, a new government was elected, the budget followed four months after the election of that new Prime Minister. On May 22, 1979, I think there was a government that was elected under Mr. Joe Clark, and
Supply
the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) only waited six months before tabling his budget. Maybe the Minister's comment might be more appropriate in this instance. In 1980, after the Liberals came back to power, a budget followed two months later. But now eight months have gone by, or close to nine. The election took place on September 4, and if a budget is brought down on May 21st, eight months and 12 days will have elapsed.
Now, with respect to jobs, which was the second part of the question, the Government is bragging about having created 100,000 jobs during the First six months of its administration. Now, 1 am not sure how the month of September could be accounted for since the transfer of powers occurred half way through that month. So taking September on each side to be fair to everyone during the six months previous to the transfer of powers to the Conservative Government, 175,000 jobs were created, and during the first six months of the Tory administration, the number declined by 75,000.


Mr. Toupin:: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), could he explain to me why the Canadian people voted in droves against the previous government, if not because of its poor economic performance?


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised to hear the Hon. Member for Terrebonne (Mr. Toupin) ask this question. We have indicated on several occasions that you have been elected, gentlemen, because the Canadian people believed you when you assured them that you could reduce the deficit while fulfilling some $20 billion worth of election promises.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: A little while ago, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) dealt at length with the late introduction of the budget and quoted a few figures. It has clearly been established that the budget is a little late in coming; during the election campaign, however, the Canadian people heard a great many PC candidates speak about the new approach and direction which were to give investors renewed confidence; yet, as the recovery seems rather slow, in spite of a new government which claimed it could foster confidence and start the economy moving again, I wonder what could be the effects-perhaps the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides who has a financial background could tell us-of a long delay in introducing the budget on investors' decision to go ahead and invest to create new jobs.


Raymond Garneau: It is clear that there are two alternatives under these circumstances. But since the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has decided, as he indicated last Friday in his remarks to the Economic Summit, to reduce the deficit, and the expression he used was not to cut the deficit-

March 25, 1985
Supply

Then he asked in English: "How, how much and how fast?" He also added that it would not be enough and other tough measures would have to be taken.
[ Translation]
In reply to the question put by the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), I would say that these other measures will certainly include tax increases or changes in tax expenditures, and that in both cases, either real tax increases or the suppression of a number of tax breaks, it will affect tax rates as well as investments.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the figures tabled by the Minister of Finance show that they had made up their mind even before the summit was held, since it was indicated that the employment growth in 1985 would be limited to 1.9 per cent. Considering that our labour force is 11 million people strong, this means that hardly 200,000 new jobs will be created in 1985. This is the effect of the budget cuts which the Minister of Finance announced some time ago and which he is about to implement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I take the hon. gentlemen with me wherever I go. Some places I go I need them, I can tell you! I always wonder just what one is supposed to do while waiting for the overwhelming applause to die down. I have never quite made up my mind what it is. However, I do thank them both very much.
On a more serious note, which I am sure you would have expected me to arrive at quickly in any event, I would like to say that this is certainly an omnibus resolution. It does cover the waterfront and sets out in some detail the concerns that a large number of people across Canada feel about the inaction of the present Conservative Government. As I read it, it reminds me a lot of the resolution which I introduced in 1982 when the Liberal Government was in office. I recall that at that point we were concerned about the Government's inaction with regard to jobs. We were concerned about the Government's inability to come to grips with the problems of the farming community and its inability to come forward with policies which would adequately deal with the fishermen of Canada. I am sure you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that on that very day we were discussing the plight of the elderly and the problem of natives in Canada. In fact, this resolution could well have been addressed to the previous Government with the same degree of validity. It would have been very valid.
As I read the resolution I was thinking of the events leading up to last September 4. As the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) travelled across Canada he berated the Liberals,
and justifiably so, for the way they handled the high office of government. I can remember watching with interest as the present Prime Minister laid out the problems of Canada and led people to believe that he had some solutions at hand which could be introduced to attempt to resolve those problems. I admit that he was vague. As I look back now I can well understand why. I admit that he did not put forward concrete suggestions. Looking back now I can well understand why.
I remember his saying that one of the problems of the Government was that it had lost the confidence of Canadians. He said that the actions of the Government in terms of dealing with the unemployed, dealing with the imbalances between the various regions in Canada and with regard to setting up a new arrangement for supporters by way of patronage were unsatisfactory, unacceptable, and must be changed.
I am sure it will go down in history when the present Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner), embarrassed as he was over the legacy that had been left to him by way of political patronage appointments, was attempting to explain that he had had no option in that regard. He said that he had been informed that if he did not make the appointments he would not have a sufficient number of Members to carry on in government and he therefore simply had to do as the previous Prime Minister indicated he must and make the appointments in the way that he did. In what was perhaps his finest moment, the former Leader of the Opposition leaned forward, reached out as he does, and said to the now Leader of the Official Opposition: "Sir, you had an option. You could have said no."
It is amazing what a short passage of time will do for a person's sensibilities in that regard. It is amazing how the Prime Minister seems to have forgotten what it was that caused the deterioration of the Liberal Government in office. The cause was that they were unable, or maybe unwilling, to deal with the real problems of Canada.
When the Government of today sought office it left the impression that it had an over-all plan for dealing with the serious problem of unemployment. I recall the same Prime Minister saying that after he was elected the first priority would be jobs, jobs, jobs. He said it in the House of Commons and out of the House of Commons. He indicated that it would be his priority and he left the impression that he had some views as to how that particular difficult situation could be resolved.
We have waited. Six and one-half months have now passed and there has still not been a single, solitary, concrete proposal on how to deal with the problems of the 1.5 million plus people who are still unemployed. There are 1.5 million people registered for employment, but in actual fact we all know that there are another 100,000, 200,000, or maybe even more, who have long since given up. They have decided that it does not make sense any more and they will therefore go about the rest of their lives without seeking gainful employment. They did not come by that decision easily. They came by that decision because they were forced to it. Circumstances quite clearly acted against their being able to find employment.
March 25, 1985

The Government misled them in September and October by leaving the impression that somehow it would be able to bring forward programs which would improve the opportunities for employment across Canada. The Government has had ample time to do it. There can be no excuse for a Government which cannot come forward within seven months with legislation to put in place the programs that it used as the basis for an electoral platform. There is an obligation on those who seek office, not only to tell the public of Canada what they stand for, but also, if they are successful, to follow through with the things which they themselves advanced as being the reasons why they should be elected.
The Government cannot substitute consultation for action. I watch with interest as the Prime Minister, in carefully staged performances, appears before the media and sets out how he is trying to get the advice of everyone, how he will take those positions, which are poles apart, and find a way to meld them together into something called a national policy for economic recovery.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: One of the Conservative back-benchers says "hear, hear". I put it to the Hon. Member that it is impossible to take the views of the groups in society that are polarized and find a compromise. What we must do is choose a direction for the country and then produce the legislative proposals that will bring that direction into reality. This Government has failed to do that.
I walked down the streets of Stratford on the weekend. I was asked how the local Member for Stratford was doing. I said that no doubt he was doing fine. I spoke to people from a variety of walks of life and areas in the immediately surrounding Stratford community. Their reaction was quite simple. I asked them what they thought of the new Government. They said: "Well, the Government is certainly taking its time." I asked whether things were better now than they were before. Their reaction was that things had not changed, that there had been no improvement. Those who were unemployed prior to September last year remain unemployed. Those who had difficulty maintaining their family farms were still having difficulty maintaining their family farms. As they talked about the planting season they found that they were having difficulty even now getting the necessary capital to purchase seed, to purchase the necessary fertilizers in order to get on with the job. That was exactly the situation in which they found themselves at this same time in 1984, they told me. I asked small business people whether they were finding it any easier than a year ago. I asked them whether things were improving any. Without exception they told me that this will probably be one of the worst years they have had in the last five.
The policy of the Government is a non-policy at the moment. The sense the Government has tried to leave is that somehow or other there would be an immediate improvement because somehow Conservatives exude confidence, that out of
Supply
that confidence comes action and out of that action comes benefit, and that that had not yet taken hold. In Stratford I came to the conclusion that if things were bad in 1984, as they were, things were equally as bad in 1985.
I then spoke to people in my own home community. I talked to them about how things were going there. What did I discover, Mr. Speaker? I discovered that there are now fewer people working in the area than there were a year ago, that the over-all economic conditions had not improved, that the opportunities available a year ago are not as plentiful as they were then, and that we have 2,500 people who were previously employed in the Steel Company of Canada and who remain unemployed. We still have upwards of 50 per cent of the construction industry unemployed. We have plants that have announced in the last few months that they will be closing and moving away. The most recent one, as my colleague says to me, John Inglis, a matter which 1 raised in the House of Commons, is a plant that was given $2 million or $3 million by the previous administration for the purpose of purchasing Admiral Corporation. Having purchased it, having sold the assets, and having had the most profitable year in history, it then turned around and is closing down the plant that was the basic manufacturing plant for its entire chain in Canada. That will be closed down and five or six hundred people and their families will not be able to find employment.
I say to the Government, why not make it a condition of providing public funds that companies must at least maintain employment levels? But the Government cannot do that, that is interfering with the private sector.
Later today we will be dealing with a problem that has arisen over the course of the last few weeks when a bank, mismanaged perhaps, will go under unless we give it assistance. The Government will, as it normally does in those circumstances, dash forward and offer aid. It shows the difference in the attitude of the Government but what happens when a person owes a mortgage to a bank, or perhaps a farmer owes a mortgage to a bank? What happens when we say to the Government: "Don't you think in the long-term best interests of the community that that person should be sustained?" The Government's answer is that it can do nothing about it. That is the private system. If a person is unfortunate enough to manage his or her affairs in such a way that that person cannot sustain himself, then it is just too bad. But when a bank manages its affairs in such a way as to place itself in jeopardy, the first thing that happens is that we are inundated with requests to save the bank from itself.
That is a double standard and we have to look at that very seriously. We will debate that later; I do not want to get into the details of it at the moment. There is a serious double standard in this country when it comes to the larger corporate entities. The Government seems willing, maybe even a little reluctant, to proceed with bail-outs of all different kinds, but when it comes to the private individual affected by the same kind of decision-making, there does not seem to be any assistance for them.

March 25, 1985
Supply
This leads me to a group in society who have been hardest hit, in my opinion, by the most recent economic conditions. This is a group which desperately cries out for assistance, a group that has to be treated differently from all others inasmuch as this group's circumstances are different from everyone else's. I am talking about people who fall between their early 50s and into their 60s. These are people who have worked all their lives and on whose backs and with whose sweat this country was built. Generally speaking they have rarely ever drawn a day of unemployment insurance in their lives. They have worked with industries, many of them at lower paying jobs without substantial benefits available to them. I have been pleading on behalf of those people for years with the previous administration and with this administration. I look at the Minister of Finance and I say to him that there is an absolutely desperate need for policy directed at those individuals in our society. It is unfair that those people, after having worked for all of their working lives, many of them starting in their early teens, should end up at age 55, 56, or 57 faced with the prospect of not being able to find employment, faced with the prospect of not being able to contribute to pension plans and faced with the prospect of not being part of the Canada Pension Plan and contributing during their normal last 10 years of work. Those people will lose not only in the short run because of the disastrous consequences of non-governmental action on the economic front, but they will lose in the long run because they will not be able to secure for themselves and their families the kind of economic and financial security that they had reasonably expected would be afforded to them.
I say to the Government that it did not require an economic conference across the street to come to the conclusion that there was that group in society who simply have to have action and have it now. Neither did it require a conference across the street to discover that small-business people are unable to afford to pay the exorbitant interest rates that Rowland Frazee and others like him charge on behalf of the banks. I could not help but feel ill when I watched Mr. Frazee on television saying that the big problem in our society is the size of the deficit.
Let me tell Hon. Members something. Where was Mr. Frazee when interest rates were rising, rising and rising, and continuing to contribute significantly to the over-all deficit requirements of Canada?


Mr. Crosbie:: Don't be demagogic.


Ian Deans: Where was Mr. Frazee?


John Carnell Crosbie: Where were you?


Ian Deans: Why was the minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) not asking Mr. Frazee that question when he used to mouth off on this side of the House when he was the critic for finance? Where is the Government telling the banks it is time the banks lived up to their responsibilities?


John Carnell Crosbie: You are going to get an Oscar-


Ian Deans: I may indeed.


John Carnell Crosbie: -for purported indignation.


Ian Deans: The only difference between the Hon. Minister of Justice and myself is that I mean what I say.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: You will never be in power; that is the difference.


Ian Deans: The problem with the Conservative Government is that when its members were in opposition they said all the right things. Now all we get is silence. The Minister of Justice used to stand and rail against the banks and high interest rates. Now that he is in government, he has been immediately silenced. We never hear a word from him. In fact, I think he has been muzzled. The only time he ever speaks is when he is sitting in his place. He is not allowed to rise to make a speech or a statement, for fear he will embarrass the Government. Many of us who are here remember how the Tories in opposition talked about the need for assistance for farmers and small business people and for relief from high interest rates. Where are the programs?


John Carnell Crosbie: You just open your big gap of a mouth, that is all.


Ian Deans: We all know that the Minister of Justice, voluminous though he is in his-


John Carnell Crosbie: You never did a thing for them.


Ian Deans: Keep going.


John Carnell Crosbie: If you irritate me, I will make a speech and demolish you.


Ian Deans: All I can say, since my time is up, is that I would be willing to yield to the Hon. Minister of Justice. On every occasion which we have appeared publicly, I have yet to be demolished. I would be happy to have him rise.
In closing, we support the intent of the motion. It is quite clear that the Government was elected without having developed policy to meet the needs of Canadians. The process through which it is going now is one of dividing the community rather than finding an honest consensus. The Government is creating division rather than working toward bringing forward programs to meet needs. This Government in fact is a fraud.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I am always interested in the comments of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), because he indicates that he knows what he means, that what he says is true, and so on. Does he really believe that it is not good for Canada to have Bob White in the same room with Rowland Frazee? Does he really think that we should not have consultation with organized labour, the big banks and big industries? Does he really think that consumer groups and others should not be talking together? Is that the kind of government that he would have us run, the kind of government

March 25, 1985

we had before? Does he want a confrontational government, or does he want a government which attempts to obtain ideas and input from all sides of the community? Is there anything wrong with getting input from other people?


Ian Deans: No, no.


Mr. Gormley:: Why are you against it, then?


Ian Deans: I was going to tell you, if you would listen.


John Kenneth Gormley: We are listening.


Ian Deans: Are you really?


John Kenneth Gormley: Intently.


Ian Deans: Wonderful.


John Kenneth Gormley: I am hanging on to every word.


Ian Deans: Good. Let me say to the Hon. Member who asked the question that there is nothing wrong with consultation, but consultation is not a substitute for action. When the Government of today was elected in 1984, its members had left the impression with the public of Canada that not only had they identified the problems, but that they had solutions. They asked for support on the basis of being able to put forward a new agenda for Canada, an agenda which would include solutions to the problems which they had identified when they were in opposition.
It does not require ongoing consultation in advance of the introduction of preliminary solutions. The Government's obligation is to bring forward its proposals so that they can be debated by those people who attended the conference and by the House of Commons. Then it should proceed with whatever consensus develops as a result of the debate. If it goes out and seeks consensus for the next four years, we will be in the same position as the one in which we are today, come the next election.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, does the Hon. Member not think that the arrangements with the United States to lessen trade problems are progress? I am referring, for example, to those arrangements in the steel industry, about which he is talking all the time; those in the softwood industry; those on the east and west coasts in terms of a salmon treaty; and those with respect to acid rain. Are not those kinds of things real progress? Is that not real decision-making? Why does he not stand in his place and congratulate the Government for getting down to business and doing things which have not been done for years and years?


Ian Deans: I would be willing to congratulate the Government for doing things which have not been done for years, but unfortunately I have difficulty identifying with those things. What worries me about the examples used by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) is that in fact the tendency of the Government to try to work out arrangements with the President of the United States does not in itself
Supply
result in a change in U.S. policy. In part the problems rest with the White House, but the decision on whether or not


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Do you not think they are progress?


Ian Deans: Let me finish. The decision on whether or not there will be an easing of trade relations with the U.S. rests in the Congress and in the Senate. At the very time the President of the United States was speaking with our Prime Minister in Quebec City, Senators and Congressmen were moving forward with restrictive legislation to keep Canadian-made products out of the United States. There was ongoing nonsense dialogue with the President wherein somehow or other he said: "Brian, we will do our best. We will see what we can do. We will keep it in mind. I will have a committee study it. I will refer it to someone else". The President does not have the power to change the problem areas which have been irritants over the last few years. It would only be because of our ability to reach the Senate and the Congress that we would be able to change most of the irritants.
The Hon. Member knows as well as I do that we asked the Prime Minister to raise with the President the whole question of sugar quotas, the quotas on sugar-based products, and the difficulties they were causing for Canadian companies and therefore Canadian workers. What did the President do in that regard? Prior to coming to Canada he imposed global quotas which effectively cut off the sale of products manufactured in Canada which contained a particular percentage of sugar or sugar substitute. We said that was unfair. Why was it unfair? First, because it was done without consultation.


Mr. Dick:: Consultation first!


Ian Deans: It was done without any consultation with Canada and, second, without any reference to the International Trade Commission. We suggested that that was the appropriate way to follow. That was the agreement we had with the United States. The President did not even follow the agreement. Then when we asked whether something could be done about it, what did the Prime Minister do? He said that he would go back and talk with him about it. In the meantime, unless action is taken now many of those companies will not only be locked out of the U.S. market for now but will be locked out forever. If they do not get their products on the shelves before October this year, the chance of them being able to build up consumer and customer acceptance is severely restricted. The end result will be that we will lose that market entirely and lose those jobs. The entire discussion between Canada and the United States is a sham at the moment. We are trying to find ways to improve the relationship, and the Congress and the Senate of the United States are doing everything in their power to provide further protection.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I saw an interview with Prime Minister Hawke this morning. He is the head of the Labour Party in Australia. The Hon. Member might know that, as he is pretty self-centered and thinks that the world begins and ends on the NDP benches here in the House of Commons. He may realize that Prime Minister Hawke, as head of the

March 25, 1985
Supply
Australian Labour Party, has been fairly successful in having a conference in Australia similar to the one which was held here last weekend. Does the Hon. Member think that Prime Minister Hawke is a fool, a knave, a ditherer and someone who has failed to act? He accorded these appellations to our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) because he held a conference. Does he feel that they apply equally to Prime Minister Hawke and that he is a dismal flop in his own country with respect to these matters? Or might he feel that the attempt to obtain a consensus was worth while, as nearly everyone who attended and was interviewed felt, including those in the labour movement?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understand the question. Did the Minister suggest that his own Prime Minister was a fool, a knave and a ditherer?


John Carnell Crosbie: No, you did.


Ian Deans: Those are not my kind of words. I use simple words. I can only assume that those are the words of the Minister of Justice. 1 am not surprised he says that. The Minister says that privately about the Prime Minister. I did not realize he would say it publicly.
Prime Minister Hawke carried out a much different exercise with the people of Australia. He put forward proposals for that conference to discuss. He did not just walk in there and say: "Say whatever you want to say and somehow or other I will try by magic to find a compromise".


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


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak on the motion of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), who is not here anymore. It gives me an excellent opportunity to discuss some of the accomplishments of this Government over the period of time that we have been in office, to address the financial and economic problems that we were presented with as a new Government.
I am delighted that the Hon. Member's Party is finally waking up to the needs of the people who are set out in this motion, the young people, women, farmers, fishermen, the elderly and the natives. For a number of years in power they ignored the needs of those people. That is why we have been left with the disastrous economic situation that was presented to us on September 4. It is about time the Members opposite started to think about the people in this country and not solely about their existence as a political Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about Canadians, and the various people in our society who have been seriously affected by the economic problems. We have presented a most comprehensive economic strategy. The framework that was set out on November 8 for our economic and financial policies was, I think, regarded by most people as one of the most comprehensive policy statements that has ever been set out by a particular Government.
This was an agenda for change, the change that Canadians asked for by their votes on September 4.
It is a comprehensive and very realistic exercise. It responded very clearly to the needs of the country and the needs of Canadians. It is a very sensible approach to government. It is a new approach though, a new approach that calls for consultation and co-operation among the different elements of society and the different regions of the country. We intend during the course of this exercise to protect the citizens who have been affected and to build economic growth, build job creation so we can address clearly the problems with which we have been faced.
Are we delaying unduly? According to many Members opposite, the November 8 statement was referred to as a Budget. They said: "It's a Budget, why can't we have a Budget debate?" Now they are saying they have not had a Budget. The reason they said it was a Budget last November was that it was so comprehensive and far-reaching in its impact on Canadians. I realize that it has the importance of a Budget because of the extensive nature of that statement. However, Hon. Members cannot have it both ways.
The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides said that we have been delaying too long with our Budget. Let me remind him that in 1980, after only nine months out of power, Mr. Mac-Eachen, the then Minister of Finance, took about the same amount of time to present a new Budget, a Budget that was a disaster. The second Budget was also a disaster which left him out of office very, very quickly.
We will wait to see how well the Canadian people are going to respond to the Budget that 1 will be putting forward during the week of May 20. Hon. Members should recognize that we are approaching this Budget in a way that will get it right and get it right the first time, not fumble away like previous Ministers of Finance and Liberal Governments have done with Budget after Budget which did not address the problems. In fact, they compounded the problems they were faced with at that time.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) said that consultation is no substitute for action. He is right. I say that because we have acted in a number of ways and I would like to set them out. We said we would deal with the deficit and we did by cutting expenditures by $4.2 billion in the November 8 statement. We reduced the projected level of spending for this year and are committed to continue to do so throughout the life of this Parliament. We have also acted in putting an additional $1 billion into job-creation programs, linked with training so that those job-creation programs will be career development jobs, not short-term, dead-end jobs, as was the policy of the previous Government. We have moved in the area of social assistance, increasing the spouse's allowance to 85,000 low-income Canadians, mainly women. We announced and implemented a fuel tax rebate of three cents per litre on motor fuels used off highway by farmers, fishermen and other primary producers.
March 25, 1985

Other actions that we have introduced during this period of time have addressed clearly the greatest need of the greatest number of Canadians. I want to refer to some of these as well. However, let me say that Opposition Members and other Members have focused only on the deficit itself. They have ignored the far-reaching nature of other elements of our economic policy as set out in the November 8 statement. We said that the private sector must be given the opportunity to grow. How have we done that? We said that there are government-created obstacles to growth and there is a need for a greater degree of incentive in areas such as research and development, trade, investment and the training of our people.
Let me get back to government intervention. Over the years we have seen Governments develop an intricate web of regulations, subsidies and other forms of intervention which have slowed down the private sector. This we are committed to remove and we have set out a clear game plan as to how we are going to remove it.
Let us look at some of the actions we have taken along those lines. Investment Canada-removing the greatest obstacle that has been in place to foreign investment. With regard to the National Energy Program, my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney), is very close to an agreement which will remove the taxation and regulatory impediments to a very, very powerful industry in this country.
The Atlantic Accord on energy development was a great step forward in freeing up the resources of the private sector and in developing the energy reserves off the coast of Newfoundland. The Regional Development Agreement with Quebec was the first since 1974 that any Government has signed with the Province of Quebec, along with the subagreements in the areas of communication, tourism and industrial development.
There is simply no truth that this Government has not been acting. Last weekend there was the National Economic Conference. A few weeks back the First Ministers met. Those are clear steps forward in drawing together the Canadian family to develop the ideas that are necessary, to address the economic problems that we all face. We are all in this together. We saw 135 people last weekend sitting around that conference table trying to understand the position of the other side and putting forward ideas as to how we can address the problems. Canadians can adapt and are willing to adapt, but they have to know what the problems of the other persons are because that is their nature. That is how we can get economic renewal.
It was a sign of desperation on the part of Members opposite when they were reduced to the ritual game-playing over the timing of a Budget. It was a childish response on Friday afternoon because Members opposite wanted to have the afternoon off to go home. They tried to deflect the attention of Canadians. The Hon. Member opposite has had to work because she was at the Economic Conference. I think she learned something. All of her game-playing colleagues went home for the weekend. They took the afternoon off.
Supply
Members opposite are trying to deflect attention away from the National Economic Conference by saying that it is a sham and that it did not produce anything. Hon. Members opposite are out of touch with Canadians. They are out of touch with the people who were at that conference. They should say to the people who were at that conference that it was only a public relations exercise and was not worth their time. I think Members opposite would find that there would be a great deal of disagreement with that from the labour people, the management people, the people from the arts community, the people from the women's groups and the people from the disabled groups. All the people to whom I spoke felt it was a very worth-while exercise which did accomplish an awful lot of things. We on this side of the House as well as many Canadians feel that we welcome opportunities to discuss these views together in order to understand the views of other Canadians, because that will help in our decision making.
I would like to deal with the part of the motion which deals particularly with confidence in the economy. I think that the Hon. Member is trying to cast a pall over the things that are happening in the market-place, in the economy and in the real world because Members opposite do not like what they see out there. They are worried about what is happening. Canadians are ignoring the Opposition for this reason. Canadians see the Opposition as being irrelevant. The polls, the National Economic Conference and the economic statistics are saying that self-confidence and confidence in the Government is growing.
I would like to quote from an article in today's La Presse. [Translation]
In an editorial in La Presse I read the following, and I quote:
Which means that Mr. Mulroney's team, after six months in power, has managed to win the confidence of all regions and all groups, thereby raising almost unreasonable expectations. There is a caveat there for Budget Day.

Confidence is a vital ingredient but let us look at what is happening. I would like to talk about some economic statistics that underline the fact that confidence is returning to the country. Recently there has been a real scramble among economists to upgrade their figures. This has happened since we came into power. Many economists have upgraded their figures by one-half of 1 per cent in real growth for this year. A survey done by the Purchasing Management Association of Canada shows that production in the manufacturing sector is growing strongly and that shipments in new orders are increasing at double-digit rates at the current time. The survey also showed that employment and new orders are on the increase. Statistics Canada has said that investment in the manufacturing sector is expected to increase by 26 per cent for this year and that the oil and gas drilling industry is up by 20 per cent. This is a very important statistic which affects not only western Canada but all parts of Canada because of the many suppliers to that industry. We have made a good start by indicating to the industry that we understand its problems and

March 25, 1985
Supply
it is responding with its investment dollars and creating jobs as it does so.
There are other statistics as well. Manpower Temporary Services say that there is an encouraging improvement in the outlook for job openings in the second quarter and that that optimism is shared by employers right across the country.
Canadians made a very important change on September 4. They made a change that brought a fundamental improvement to the national outlook. A recent survey showed that Canadians expressed confidence in the handling of unemployment now relative to what they were saying a year earlier. The unemployment rate has gone down from 11.6 per cent to 11 per cent. That is progress. In fact, 84,000 jobs have been created since September. We can do better than that, we should do better than that, but it is a good start.
We have made a good start as well at controlling inflation. We are doing better than the United States in that area. We are moving in a positive direction. There have been no miracles but there has been solid evidence of growth and an improvement in confidence. We need more but we have made satisfactory progress. Canadians are too realistic to expect miracles or to expect a quick fix to happen overnight. However, they know that the fundamental problems are being addressed and that we are dealing with those problems we inherited.
Let us look at the real world. Economists have noted that consumer borrowing has been increasing strongly in recent months. That shows confidence in the future. Canadians are talking with their actions. What consumers are actually doing is indicated by how much money they are borrowing and where it is being spent. Retail sales were 12 per cent higher in January than they were a year earlier. That is a very respectable increase even after the effects of inflation are taken into account.
There is no doom and gloom out there, Mr. Speaker. The doom and gloom is right here with Members opposite. They are walking around with a little cloud over their heads. They do not want to come out from under that cloud. They do not want to face the real world.
I would like to touch on some of the criticisms that have been made by some Hon. Members regarding the consensusbuilding process. I do not understand it. I simply do not understand why Members opposite say that this is a waste of time. Hon. Members should have listened to Prime Minister Hawke, the head of the Australian Labour Party, because he shares some of the political viewpoints of the two opposition Parties. Surely his words demonstrate the importance of consensus. His message to us was that consultation leads to better understanding, better understanding leads to more cooperation and more co-operation clearly leads to economic growth. That is an excellent example from another country, a country not dissimilar to Canada, demonstrating that we are on the right track in moving toward a great degree of consensus.
1 do not understand why Members opposite are so negative. I say they are out of touch with the Canadian people. Only last week some Members from across the floor were suggesting that the Government tell delegates to the National Economic
Conference to go home. They mocked the Government and said that the Government had already made up its mind. I indicated very clearly by saying that the Budget would be like that we have not made up our minds but are listening and are open to the good suggestions that are coming forward.
I would like to touch on the consensus that was reached at the National Economic Conference last weekend. Consensus was reached on the importance of the problems of unemployment, interest rates and the deficit but consensus was also reached that we must be very sensitive to the regional considerations and to the impact of our actions on the handicapped, youth, native people and workers. We must be careful that we do not affect workers unduly by the decisions that we might make when dealing with the deficit. There was not a full consensus on this point, but a number of people from the labour side as well from other communities said to us that the deficit is a problem with which we must deal because it is too high. They said that they might have some different priorities but that it is a problem with which we must deal.
Training and retraining should receive top consideration by the Government in order to deal with the effects of technological change. We talked about some of the ways in which we could do this. Business representatives agreed that business should be prepared to pull back from the public trough. That was stated very clearly by business representatives. Government, labour and management all agreed that we must coordinate our efforts in dealing with technological changes and their effect on people and people's ability to adapt to technological change. Only through consultation will we be able to address that problem in a satisfactory way. There was full agreement that we must look carefully at access to capital by small business, the visible minorities and women. We must be willing to discuss incentives within this context.
I am sure that it is difficult for Hon. Members to appreciate that the Government is not trying to fool anyone. We have placed our agenda on the table. It is there for all to see. That is why we are getting such a good response on this consultative effort. People know what we want to address and they are coming to us with a great many very useful ideas. The National Economic Conference was the most comprehensive assembly of Canadians ever to discuss with a national Government the problems which we all face. Very positive attitudes and contributions came forward from all participants.
Canadians are not confused by what the Government is doing. They are insisting that they want to be a part of the process. Not only are they telling the Government that they want that, but they are showing it by their actions and the clear confidence which they are expressing in this Government. This Party has the confidence of Canadians. Canadians have understood the message that the Prime Minister sent to them. Canadians have said that we must work together to find ways. This Government has pledged to listen, discuss and plan with
March 25, 1985

Canadians. It has also said that it will act. It has acted and it will continue to act. The next major milestone in this process wil be the Budget in May.
If Hon. Members in the Opposition Parties want to join in this process in a constructive way, we welcome that. However, if they do not choose to listen, pay attention or participate, then so be it, but Canadians have joined with us in this process. Canadians are leaving Members opposite behind. I am sure their constituents will encourage them to get aboard, but if they do not, then the rest of us-all Canadians-will work to solve the economic problems with which we all are faced.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides, for questions and comments.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said in his speech, in referring to job creation, that 84,000 new jobs since September was not a bad start. How can he say that, when he knows perfectly well that during the six months preceding the advent of this Government, 175,000 jobs had been created? How can he say it is a good thing, when in fact it is a step backwards?
1 have another question about the Minister's speech, which concerns his referring to additional confidence. If this confidence really exists, why does his department expect only a 1.9 per cent increase in employment in 1985?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I did not catch the last question.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister said in his speech that the new Government has created 84,000 jobs since September. He also said that it was just a start. How can he say that when the statistics from Statistics Canada show that before the Conservatives came into power-


Michael Holcombe Wilson: No, the second part of the question.


Raymond Garneau: The second part of the question dealt with the fact that the Minister said business has renewed confidence in the economic future. If that is true, why is his own Department projecting an increase of only 1.9 per cent in employment for 1985?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out very simply that the 84,000 figure is better than the performance for the same period 12 months ago. That is why I believe the Hon. Member should be congratulating this Government on its performance in job creation over the past six months.
The second part of his question dealt with renewed confidence. I would tell him that there has been renewed confidence. In my November statement I indicated that real growth
Supply
would probably be about 2.4 per cent. However, increased confidence has been demonstrated by business and consumers. People are demonstrating that confidence by borrowing money to purchase goods from stores. Retail sales have increased by 12 per cent. Canadians are saying that there is better hope, and for that reason real growth has been increased from 2.4 per cent to 2.75 per cent. Other economists have said that they are expecting real growth in excess of 3 per cent for the current year. That is in response to the improved level of confidence which both business and consumers have demonstrated since September 4. It has been during that period of time that confidence has been improving and economists have been increasing their expectations of real growth.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether or not it is a question of language, but I am not sure the Minister answered my question. If the business sector and consumers are so confident with the new Government, why has the Department of Finance, in the paper which was tabled on Saturday morning, projected an increase of only 1.9 per cent in employment for 1985, after the increase of 2.5 per cent in 1984? If the confidence is there, why does the Minister's own Department expect that the increase will be only 1.9 per cent? That will mean the creation of approximately 200,000 jobs, which can be compared to the 255,000 or 260,000 jobs which were created during 1984.
The Minister said that consultation is a good thing. I agree. However, if the consultation during the weekend was serious, why did the Minister say on Friday morning:
we ... will continue the thrust of deficit control in the upcoming budget. To do it, I need your help. The key questions that I hope you will address at this conference are how, how much and how fast.
The Minister clearly stated that cutting the deficit was his main objective and not necessarily job creation. The Minister asked: "How, how much and how fast?" The consultation during the weekend was supposed to have been on those things, but the Minister must have already made up his mind, otherwise he would not have said that.
The Minister compared the consultation during the weekend with that which was held in Australia. The Minister will recall that I asked him last Thursday if the Government was going to table a position paper. That is what happened in Australia. The new Government in Australia tabled a position paper and sought consensus on a government proposal. However, during the weekend there was no proposal from this Government, except the speech of the Minister of Finance, in which he clearly stated that the objective was the deficit and nothing else.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has squeezed in a number of questions and 1 will try to address each one.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: They are good ones.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member says they are good ones. I am not so sure, but I will do my best to

March 25, 1985
Supply
make them sound better than they sounded when they came across the floor.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I would like to address the question of employment in 1985. The Hon. Member, as an astute observer of the economic process, will understand the nature of business cycles. When times are good, there is high employment creation. But the normal forces of the economy will cause that business cycle to turn down at any given period of time. We are now in the late stages of a business cycle, so there is a natural process of downturn. We are attempting to adjust upward that downturn through the policies which we have introduced.
As I indicated on November 8, we were looking at some slowdown during the course of the business cycle. I made it quite clear at that time that there would probably be some slowdown in the economic process in 1985. However, since November, people-not me, but business people and economists-have said that they have higher expectations of growth in the economy because of the things that the Government is doing. Therefore, we are looking for better economic growth in 1985 than was expected at the end of 1984. That is progress. It is not as much progress as I would like but we are moving in the right direction.
The Hon. Member said that by my statement on Friday morning at the National Economic Conference I was foreclosing on the consultative process. I am not doing so. If he had read my speech he would not have made that comment. Yes, I did say we are committed to a reduction in the deficit. I am surprised that that Hon. Member, of all Hon. Members in the Opposition Parties, should be attacking me for trying to get a greater degree of control over the deficit, because he himself has stated on many occasions that the deficit, at $35 billion, is far too high. What we are saying is we are open to consultation on how much and how fast, and I received good ideas on that. I think that was a very helpful part of the process last weekend.
Let me also ask the Hon. Member to broaden his horizons a little, to not just look at the deficit but at the range of issues I discussed in my speech. Other areas were discussed, such as trade, technology, training, and all of these things about which I set the stage in my opening remarks to encourage discussion by participants at the conference so that we could benefit from the views of the Canadians who were represented there.
The Hon. Member asked why we did not set out position papers for the Economic Conference. I ask him to think back-although it is a long time ago-to November 8. We did set out in the economic statement in November a very clear statement of the range of options which were open to us. It was a very extensive position paper, if you will, which covered a number of items which we felt should be discussed. That was the framework of reference for most of the topics which were discussed in the Economic Conference.
Let me outline some of those topics. Research and development; technology; training; investment, particularly for small business; trade; policy and trade promotion; unemployment insurance reform; and how to deal with the problems of access to capital by small business, women and minority groups. These were all signalled in the statement of November 8.
That was the framework for discussion at the Economic Conference this past weekend. It was also the framework for discussion in the consultative process which was carried out by many of my colleagues in the Government and it has been responded to in a very healthy and positive way by Canadians right across the country.


Mr. Langdon:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose quite a serious question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). We as a Party have a commitment to consultation equal to his own. In fact, we have just finished a consultation process across the country with well over 400 groups in 27 communities in which people have expressed to us their concern and urgency about the employment issue. They have stressed as well the point which I believe the Minister has made, that is, that they want to be consulted. They want some sense of involvement in policy.
As an observer at the National Economic Conference, I was struck by two or three things; first, by the sense that within that conference the Government did not, unlike Robert Hawke in Australia, have a sense of direction, a sense of strategy, that it was trying to bring people together. Second, I certainly came away myself with a sense of confrontation rather than of consensus with respect to free trade, the deficit, and how the Government handled changes in the unemployment insurance system, to mention just three.
From my point of view, believing in consensus and in efforts to involve people in economic policy making, that conference will stand out as a case of disappointed expectations. I suspect if the Minister of Finance is honest he would admit to us that there were a great many things about that way of organizing national consultation which did not work very effectively. So I would ask the Minister of Finance what he would do differently in terms of a national economic conference next year or in two years? What would he do to get people to work together without quite as much grandstanding and emphasis on prepared positions? What kinds of changes in the structure of that consultation process would the Minister like to see put into effect?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is now over. Is there unanimous consent to allow the Minister to answer?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Don't take an hour.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I can run it through to one o'clock, if anyone is hungry. In response to the serious question posed by the Hon. Member, I can tell him that it is a question which we are going to address. The private sector advisory
March 25, 1985

committee has said that it is going to be meeting shortly to discuss that very question. So I am not going to foreclose on options which might come forward from that meeting. I can say, however, in the most non-partisan way-because there are Hon. Members from all political Parties represented on that advisory committee-that it worked very effectively and provided the backdrop for what I thought was a very good conference. So I do not want to foreclose on any of the suggestions with which they might come forward.
Let me just comment briefly in response to the Hon. Member's question. In his preamble to the question he said that there was no strategy put forward in the Economic Conference. I will just repeat in one sentence what I said to the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides. There was a very specific strategy in a number of areas set out in the economic statement of November 8 which provided the framework for discussion in those particular topic areas. That has been followed up by discussion papers on a number of those areas which have been released by individual Ministers.
The Hon. Member has said that consensus is difficult in deficit and trade. We recognize that fact but we did not shy away from putting those topics on the agenda. We knew we were not going to get consensus, but what we were trying to achieve was a better understanding of both sides of those very difficult questions among the proponents of the particular topic areas. That was an important achievement. I spoke to people on both sides of those issues after the conference who said: "I understand better what X said and what X meant". That, I believe, is a very important achievement.
Going back to what Mr. Hawke said, understanding is a very important step to co-operation and better economic development as we work together in facing the problems.
Let me say that I share the view suggested by the Hon. Member in his preamble that there probably could have been a greater degree of dialogue instead of the presentation of prepared positions. I feel that the workshops themselves, the concurrent sessions on Friday night and Saturday morning, achieved that dialogue to a better extent than was the case in the plenary sessions. Perhaps there should be more of a bias towards the workshop sessions as opposed to the plenary sessions, in order to draw people out in a more informal atmosphere rather than in front of the TV cameras in the plenary sessions.
I prefer not to say more at this point without having the views of the private sector advisory committee which represents quite a broad spectrum of Canadian thinking on this.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, over seven months ago, on September 4, the Canadian people gave to this Government one of the largest majorities in Canadian history. That majority was based on an understanding that the Conservative Government would create employment. To use the words of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in his
Supply
election campaign, "tens of thousands of jobs" would be created as soon as the Conservative Government took office.
Canada had emerged from a severe world recession with an economy that was showing some signs of strength in that inflation and interest rates were down and jobs were being created, although not at a level fast enough to accommodate our very rapidly growing labour force. Canada's record of job creation has been unusually good for many years but we have also had a faster growing labour force than most OECD countries. By the beginning of 1984 some three million more people were employed than had been employed in 1968, but we still had Canadians who wanted work and could not get it. Even the Department of Finance paper which was made available at the weekend conference says that the severe recession in 1981 to 1982 led to a sharp decline in employment, but by the end of 1984 "the level of employment had rebounded above its pre-recession peak. The resulting decline in the unemployment rate was relatively moderate, however, due to large gains in the labour force".
Nevertheless, the Conservative Government came in with assurances that it had the answers to deal with this situation. Here we are, seven and a half months later, with very little new legislation, no Budget, and we now learn there will be no Budget until the end of May. But at least as distressing as the absence of a Budget is the absence of any thoughtful discussion on the state of our economy. There is room for serious discussion. There is room for honest differences of opinion on the best way to proceed at this time in order to ensure that the recovery is durable and that government policies facilitate economic growth and a return to prosperity with full employment.
It is regrettable that the Government has not been willing to have a very full debate on economic policies in the House so that ideas could be examined carefully and thoughtfully. We had an economic statement in the middle of the Throne Speech debate which certainly put severe limits on the possibilities for discussion, and increasingly questions asked in the House on economic matters are being turned back with partisan shots or are the subject of jokes and one-liners. The Government has made no attempt to take Parliament into its confidence, to explain, persuade, advance and develop argument in favour of whatever plans it has for the future. After seven months we are left to guess and draw conclusions from ministerial statements and positions which are often contradictory.
The economic statement on November 8 cut many Government programs, including the National Research Council. Yet the Government is talking about wanting to encourage research and development and innovation. The economic statement emphasized restraint, yet when the Government's Estimates were introduced for the year 1985-86, they were the highest in History and included large additions to the Prime Minister's personal staff and the personal staff of Ministers. The Government talks about creating confidence. Surely a necessary condition for confidence is order and predictability. Yet decisions are made very rapidly or are not made at all. For

March 25, 1985
Supply
a full two months we had tremendous uncertainty created all over the country by conflicting and confusing statements on the social programs, particularly family allowance and old age programs, before the Government finally came up with its consultation paper. No one can regard that as a confidencebuilding exercise.
On November 8 the economic statement included some discussion of a proposal to make some changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act which would require that people use up their severance pay and pension benefits before being eligible for unemployment insurance. At the conference on the weekend some 87 of 136 people there signed a petition against that particular amendment being introduced. So those delegates were certainly not foreseeing a rapid end to unemployment or a situation where people would not need to make use of unemployment insurance. An unemployed delegate who was there said nothing has changed for anyone in need of a job. Things may even have gotten worse, Mr. Speaker, in recent months. The Department of Finance paper shows some interesting figures which make it clear that this Government inherited a situation which was as good as it could be considering that we were emerging from a very severe world recession. The figures for 1984 show real GNE as 4.7 per cent, but the Department's projection for 1985 is 2.4 per cent.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It is 2.75 per cent, Aideen.


Aideen Nicholson: I am reading from a paper which was made available at the conference and 2.4 per cent is the figure under 1985. We see a very small change in the unemployment rate. We also see a reduction in the projected figures for new employment. These Figures were produced by the Department of Finance and indicate a slight drop in unemployment as being projected in 1985, but also a substantial drop in the number of new jobs to be created. I hope we may have an explanation of that later.
The Government has steadily refused to give information about the economic costs of the cuts announced in the November statement, although the Prime Minister in his book published some time ago says that "inasmuch as we are paying for information, it does not seem unreasonable that we should have access to it. Freedom of information should apply to the Department of Finance".
In the time left to me, I want to turn briefly to the question of Canada-U.S. trade. Almost 80 per cent of our trade is with the United States. The U.S. is our major ally, we have the longest undefended border in the world, and of course it is very important that relations with them go smoothly. Indeed, if the Government has some plans in hand to enhance trade, we would certainly want to encourage that.
But our American friends are also shrewd bargainers and very adroit at defending their interests. We would welcome some assurances from the other side, which we have not had yet, that in negotiations on trade with the United States there will be a full awareness of all that is involved in terms of technological transfers and adjustment assistance for some of our industries.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but I wish to advise her that she has 10 minutes left in her speech this afternoon.
The Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) rises on a point of order.


Mrs. McDougall:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to make a statement to the House. As outlined by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) this morning, I believe we now have unanimous consent to proceed.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm that there were consultations in the course of the morning and we are ready to give unanimous consent so that the House can sit after one o'clock, over the luncheon period, for a sufficient time for the Minister to make a statement on motions, for the Opposition Parties to reply, and for the usual period for questions on the statement to take place.
It has to be clearly understood, however, that our agreement to this does not mean that we would agree not to ask any questions we think necessary in the public interest during the Question Period today or in any subsequent Question Period.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, we too would consent to the statement along the lines of what was said by the House Leader for the Official Opposition.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I gather there is unanimous consent.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANADIAN COMMERCIAL BANK
Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House that an agreement was reached this morning to provide the Canadian Commercial Bank with an infusion of capital which will ensure the long-term viability of this Edmonton-based bank. The agreement is a co-operative effort which brings together three Governments, six banks, and the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation to provide a support package which will enable this bank to remain viable, thereby protecting the interests of small and medium-sized business in western Canada.
The bank recently experienced a sharp deterioration in its U.S. loan portfolio, particularly as a result of lower oil prices. This situation significantly depressed the value of the Canadian Commercial Bank's loan portfolio. The management of the bank realized that they could not continue to operate a viable banking operation given the magnitude of the problem loans. While many of these loans had been considered manageable, it became evident in recent weeks, given the severity of the situation in the U.S., that a high proportion of them should be written off or significantly reduced on the books of the bank.
March 25, 1985

The management of the bank advised the office of the Inspector General of Banks of the seriousness of the situation on March 14, 1985. Following an analysis by the Inspector General, including on-site re-evaluation of the loan portfolio, it was determined that an important infusion of additional funds was needed to support the continued operation of the bank. It was established that a support package totalling $255 million would be required.
The Government of Alberta was approached by the bank and expressed, at an early stage, its willingness to participate in a support group. The federal Government indicated its willingness to examine ways of providing the necessary assistance. As a result of the negotiations an agreement was reached among members of the support group to provide the $255 million infusion of capital required.
The support package is structured in the following way, Mr. Speaker. The Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation will provide $75 million. The remaining $180 million will be shared equally by the Province of Alberta, the chartered bank group, and the Government of Canada. The package includes a repayment program which requires the Canadian Commercial Bank to pay 50 per cent of its future pre-tax profits to the participating institutions until the capital is repaid in full. The remaining 50 per cent of the profits will be retained by the bank. No common or preferred share dividends will be paid until the repayment program is complete.
The package also calls for warrants to be issued which, if exercised, would result in substantial dilution of equity held by existing shareholders. In addition, payment of principal and interest on the bank's subordinated debt will be postponed until such time as the members of the support group have been repaid in full.
In a separate arrangement the Governments of Alberta, British Columbia and Canada will be purchasing up to $39 million of the subordinated debt of the bank. The three Governments will share equally in this package. It is a vote of confidence by the members of the support group in the longterm viability of this western-based bank and the economic potential of western Canada, Mr. Speaker.
I know that the House shares our confidence in this regard and stands ready to demonstrate its approval of this positive action. I have been assured by Governor Gerald Bouey that, as usual, the Bank of Canada stands ready to provide liquidity for the Canadian Commercial Bank, if requested, as well as for any other Canadian bank.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister inform the House whether the Inspector General of Banks was aware of the situation before March 14?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We are still on statements. The question period will come a little bit later. Does the Member have a statement to make?


Aideen Nicholson: No.
Canadian Commercial Bank


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that under the circumstances we can understand why the Government is taking prompt action on this matter. However, having said that, I do not have a number of questions that have to be answered at some point which concern us about this particular action.
First, there is evidence that the bank has been in trouble for some time. What has occurred in the last 48 hours or so, or began officially some two weeks ago on March 14, is what might be described as a request for pressing action that is now being met in an affirmative way by the Government. However, I repeat that there is evidence that the bank had been in some difficulty for some time leading up to March 14. Therefore, why was action not taken prior to today to deal with that situation?
For example, where was the monitoring that ought to have taken place by the Inspector General of Banks on a regular basis? If that monitoring had taken place as a matter of course, it might have led to changes in decisions that would have avoided the current situation which now has to be dealt with by Parliament, the Government of the Province of Alberta and the chartered banks. Why were the warning signals which were out there not adhered to? I am thinking particularly of the collapse of the real estate market in Alberta and of the difficulties in the energy sector, both in Canada and the United States. The bank had a lot of investments in this sector. Serious questions must be asked and answered about the failure to recognize the serious downturn in real estate in the Province of Alberta and the real difficulties in energy.
Third, Mr. Speaker, more than 20 years ago we had the Porter Royal Commission on banks which called for changes in the monitoring procedures that affect our banks and trust companies in particular. The changes that were recommended more than 20 years ago have not been acted upon. If corrective action had been taken in the past two decades, the kind of situation with which the country is now faced-and I am choosing my words with care-might have been avoided.
We have some concerns about the details of this particular bail-out. I appreciate the frankness and helpfulness of both the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) leading up to these statements. They were quite candid in terms of what the Government is involved in here. My understanding of what the Government is involved in is that the people of Canada, via the Government of Canada, are providing an interest-free loan to the bank. If it is not a interest-free loan, we would like to know what the terms are. Through the federal Government the taxpayers of Canada are putting up $60 million and through the Government of Alberta the taxpayers of Alberta are putting up another $60 million. The only guarantee that we will get that money back at all is if this bank turns out to be profitable in the future. We are now in a high-risk situation in terms of returns to the taxpayers for their money.
3312

March 25, 1985
Canadian Commercial Bank
The question obviously that ought to be dealt with by the Government at some point is why steps were not taken even at this late date in the past couple of weeks to bring about a merger within the banking sector itself. Why did the Government have to get involved? This is a private banking system, a profitable banking system. The banking system of Canada, specifically the chartered banks, have the highest profits of any banking system in the world. Why were steps not taken to bring about a merger within the banking system itself to deal with the situation, instead of resorting to the use of taxpayers' money, in the one instance by the federal Government involving all taxpayers of Canada, and in the other instance by the taxpayers of the Province of Alberta?


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) placed his questions by prefacing them with the statement. "We would like to know". May I now say that I would like to know a number of things. For instance, was the Inspector General of Banks made aware or was he aware of the difficult situation prior to March 14? The Department of the Inspector General of Banks has been increased and has had its staff increased quite considerably this year. In a function in the Estimates we read:
During periods when the economy is going through a period of adjustments- there can be a serious erosion of the financial positions of governments, corporations, and individuals which may result in the reduced credit worthiness of certain classes of borrowers. The Inspector General will in times such as these most strongly encourage banks to diversify their lending activity to avoid concentrations of loans to a small number of large borrowers or to a few specific sectors of the economy.
What action, if any, did the Inspector General of Banks take in this case prior to March 14, particularly since the bank's difficulties arose from a drastic deterioration in the U.S. loan portfolio? Had the Inspector General of Banks addressed this particular situation? Was he aware of the size of the bank's U.S. portfolio? Was there a discussion of this prior to March 14?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer both series of questions. In terms of difficulties showing up prior to March 14, the Inspector General monitors all financial institutions on a regular basis and there was no indication before March 14 that there were serious problems within this bank. As Hon. Members, I am sure, are aware, a sudden turn in the financial situation can make the difference between a bank that is dealing appropriately with a difficult situation and something that bears with it the threat of insolvency. This particular problem was triggered by something that happened within the bank's loan portfolio in California which then, of course, created problems within the organization as a whole.
I am aware, if I may say so, of the problems in dealing with financial institutions which the Hon. Member raised around rules which have not been changed for a long time. That is the reason I have indicated before in this House that we intend to produce a paper on financial institutions, how they can better serve this country and how the regulatory supervision can meet
the standards of today in a way that we may not have been able to deal with before.
Let me just deal with the guarantees of repayment. In consultation with the support group, we are satisfied that this bank is now a viable bank, that it will be profitable in the future, and that we will be repaid, as will other members of the support group, out of the future profits of the bank.
There was a question regarding what steps were taken regarding a potential merger. All avenues were explored within the context of the interested parties, and this was the most appropriate way to deal with the problems of the bank. It indicates, I think, the faith of the Province of Alberta, its confidence and our confidence in the ability of the bank in the future, and there is a very significant private sector involvement in this arrangement.
I think the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) raised the same question concerning the role of the Inspector General regarding difficulties. I think I have dealt with that question.
In terms of diversification, the bank had made business decisions to expand into other regions. It expanded into Ontario and into California in an effort to diversify its assets and deposit base. Those were decisions of which the Inspector General was aware. They were appropriate business decisions at the time they were taken. It was in a responsible way, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the bank was acting in the interests of its depositors by diversifying into other areas.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister tell us what the amount of the outstanding indebtedness is in the United States that is being written off by the bank?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the difficulties in the United States account for about $90 million worth of the difficulties which the bank has faced. In order to provide the bank with a viable base, the figure arrived at through consultation with the Inspector General will ensure that the bank is operating in a viable way in the future.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I know this is a delicate matter, but I would like to ask the Minister whether the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation is still a shareholder and to what extent. I also have a query about an indication on page 3 of the Minister's statement where it says that-

I will quote from the package. It also called for warrants to be issued which, if exercised, would result in a substantial dilution of equity held by existing shareholders.
I understand that other banks have taken part in the operation and the Minister knows that the bank cannot own shares of other banks. Would it mean that the bank could not exercise the warrants? If so, does the Minister want to table a piece of legislation to make that possible?
March 25, 1985


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the warrants which are a part of this package recognize that an equity infusion of capital will be an appropriate route for this bank down the road. The warrants may or may not be exercised by members of the support group. Warrants, as the Hon. Member knows, can be traded to other people for exercise. We have provided a vehicle whereby there can be an equity infusion into the company at a future time.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not answer my first question about the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. Is CDIC still a shareholder of the CCB? Also I should like to ask a supplementary question arising from the answer she has just given. I understand that the warrant can be traded on the market. However, is it legally possible for the bank to own a title to which is attached a warrant that it cannot legally have in its portfolio?


Barbara Jean McDougall: As I understand it, CDIC is not a shareholder in the bank. It has provided a participation within the support group; it is not a shareholder in the bank. Since the warrants are not an entitlement to voting equity, until exercised, I understand from our advisers that the warrants are an appropriate vehicle.


Raymond Garneau: Could the Hon. Minister answer my first question? Is CDIC still a shareholder of CCB?


Barbara Jean McDougall: I thought I had indicated that Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation is not a shareholder in the CCB. It is participating in the support package, which does not involve an equity investment.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, were discussions held with the Government of the Province of Ontario as a result of the ownership of a substantial number of shares by three trust companies-Crown Trust, Greymac and Seaway Mortgage Corporation-in the Canadian Commercial Bank, given that the Province of Ontario seized all the assets of those three trust companies in the not too distant past and that at that time those assets accounted for about 27 per cent of the total share value of the Canadian Commercial Bank?


Barbara Jean McDougall: As I understand it, we did not discuss this relationship with the Government of Ontario at the stage when we were preparing a support package. Also as I understand it, the assets of those companies are in the hands of liquidators, not in the hands of the Government of the Province of Ontario.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister. For many Canadians, banking is a mysterious world they have trouble understanding. Could the Minister explain why the Government reacted so quickly in the case of the Canadian Commercial Bank and why it took so long to react in the matter of Pioneer Trust?
Canadian Commercial Bank

Why is there this urgency with the Canadian Commercial Bank but not with the Pioneer Trust situation? Is there a difference that we should understand?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a difference between the two situations. Pioneer Trust had been searching for an infusion of capital for some time. It had been unable to find capital within the private sector without the assistance of the Government of Saskatchewan, which came to the conclusion that it could not participate in an infusion of equity into Pioneer, and the management of Pioneer voluntarily closed its doors. In this case, when help was sought from various levels of government, the provinces, and from the private sector, in their opinion it was a viable operation and, therefore, they were prepared to assist in ensuring its future on behalf of depositors and borrowers from the bank.


John Edward Broadbent: My question for the Minister relates to the S60 million the federal Government is putting up, as well as the equivalent sum by the Province of Alberta. My understanding is that that will be repaid when and if the bank once again becomes profitable. At what interest rate will that money be repaid? Is it an interest-free loan or will the bank be paying interest and, if so, in what amount?


Barbara Jean McDougall: There will not be interest paid on this infusion of capital. This is a vote of confidence in the economy of western Canada. We believe that with the bank operating in a viable way, this participation will be repaid. It is in the interests of Canadians, particulary those in western Canada, that this bank continue to operate. It has played a key role in the west in the past, and it will continue to do so in the future.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Could the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) tell us now what were the sudden events in southern California which caused certain loans to go bad? What were the amounts of those loans and to whom were they made? There has been mention that $90 million of the bank's loan portfolio is being written off. What percentage of the total loan portfolio does that $90 million comprise?


Barbara Jean McDougall: I believe the bank's total portfolio-I do not have the figures in front of me-is roughly in the area of $2.8 million. That is its total assets. The problem in California reduced its equity base, so there was virtually no support to the rest of the asset base. The bank did not face solvency problems until this situation happened. It related to a situation in California whereby the drilling industry saw a sudden and sharp deterioration. Realistically and responsibly, the bank felt that it would have to write off those loans. Therefore it placed its other loans in jeopardy, whereas they had not been before.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I could recognize four more Members, and that will be all.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister did not answer part of my question. With respect to the loans

March 25, 1985
Canadian Commercial Bank
which suddenly went sour, to whom were they made and in what amounts?


Barbara Jean McDougall: I do not have the list of the particular people and the particular loans, but they were within the energy sector in California which, at the time the loans were made, appeared to have a bright future, but due to the deterioration of oil prices its future was placed in jeopardy.
I should like to return to the question concerning CD1C as a shareholder, and I apologize to the Hon. Member. Through Greymac and Seaway, CDIC is a shareholder in CCB. It has been removed. It is not in that liquidation phase.


Ian Deans: I have one final question for the Minister. I am sure that is all you will allow, Mr. Speaker, anyway. For the year 1983, the February 6, 1984 audit result showed a net income decline of 24 per cent from the results of the previous year on a 7 per cent decline in net interest income. For the year 1984, the February 12, 1985 audit result showed a further net income decline of 88 per cent from the previous year on a 10 per cent decrease in net interest income. Given these facts, why did the Inspector General of Banks not come forward to the Government with a report which would have resulted in a closer scrutiny of the activities of the bank during the last 12-month period?


Barbara Jean McDougall: The Inspector General assures me that he has monitored the bank in the appropriate way. A decline in earnings does not necessarily lead to a solvency problem under all circumstances.


Ian Deans: A decline in income.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Neither does a decline in income necessarily lead to a solvency problem. It can have that outcome. It does not necessarily have that outcome. In the last year the bank was doing well in two quarters and did not do well in the other two quarters. Therefore, the Inspector General was aware of the progress of the bank. The bank was profitable for the first four or five years of its existence. It was after the national energy policy that it became more difficult and was making very real efforts to act responsibly with regard to its depositors and its borrowers.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister for making the correction concerning the fact that-

-the fact that Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation was a shareholder in the CCB. The reason I asked that question was because this insurance deposit corporation was a member of the shareholders of this bank. It gave to the depositor the impression that it was a good and solid bank. This is why I thank the Minister for correcting the first answer.
My question at this time deals with the third paragraph on page 3 of the Minister's statement where she said: "In a
separate arrangement the Governments of Alberta, British Columbia and Canada will be purchasing up to $39 million of the subordinated debt of the bank". Is it going to be new subordinated debt or the existing subordinated debt that is going to be bought by those three levels of government?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, it is the existing subordinated debt of the bank. It was part of the arrangements which brought us to a successful conclusion in keeping this bank in a viable position.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) on the last question.


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister said there were indications that this bank was having income difficulties and that these types of difficulties do not necessarily lead to solvency problems. While there were indications of problems that did not necessarily lead to a solvency problem in the end, did these early indications not call for an earlier report to the Government or perhaps an initiative on behalf of the Government to the Inspector General of Banks asking for his recommendations? Could earlier action have meant that the action today could have cost the Government much less in the public treasury?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I have been assured by the Inspector General that the variations in income of this bank

and I think if you look at other banks you will find similar variations-do not bring into question solvency and do not require an initiative on the part of the Government, except to the extent that the Inspector General is assured that management is taking appropriate and responsible action.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 1.33 o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1.33 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the self-styled Ronald Reagan of the North, the very Conservative Premier of Ontario, Frank Miller, has finally mustered up enough courage to go to the polls after being reassured by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) that his cut-throat budget will only be presented after the next provin-

March 25, 1985

cial election. The Ontario Conservative Party took an active part in the last federal election claiming that it was time for a change, and that having one Party in power for 12 years was too long. That is the same Party that has been in power in Ontario for 42 years.
It will be interesting to watch the Premier make election promises to the people of Ontario. His federal counterpart made 338 promises during his last election campaign and has yet to deliver on almost any of them. The people of Ontario will not be taken twice by the same Conservative Party. They realize that the Government deliberately stalled the presentation of what will be the most treacherous Budget the people of the country will ever see coming from a Government that preaches restraint but turns around and goes on spending for its own benefit.
Eight months of federal Tories is long enough. Forty-three years is way too long.



ABORIGINAL RIGHTS


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, Indian, Inuit and Metis people have all called for the constitutional recognition and entrenchment of their right to self-government. Before the arrival of early colonists, aboriginal peoples obviously governed themselves, and they have never surrendered the right to do so. In spite of this basic right, federal and provincial Governments imposed laws and regulations on their communities, while industrial and commercial developments eroded their land base and destroyed their traditional economy.
The tragic conditions in most aboriginal communities can only be changed when Canada recognizes the aboriginal peoples' right to self-government and provides resources to make that government effective. However, the working draft from the Federal-Provincial Relations Office only speaks of the right to institutions of self-government where those rights are defined through negotiated agreement. This proposal leaves aboriginal peoples without any bargaining power as they negotiate with provinces. Only if they are lucky enough to reach an agreement can some part of aboriginal self-government be recognized in the Constitution.
The federal Government cannot meet the needs of aboriginal peoples by pursuing the lowest common denominator with the provinces. The right to self-government flows from aboriginal rights. Next week at the constitutional conference the federal Government must give leadership to the provinces and push for full recognition of that right in our Constitution.


Mr. Speaker:: I would advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION OPPOSITION TO CNCP TELEPHONE SYSTEM APPLICATION

Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, we in Sask-achewan enjoy a good telephone service at reasonable rates. The Province of Saskatchewan built its own telephone system through community participation joining together to create the system as we know it today. It is efficient and economical.
CNCP Telecommunications has made an application to the CRTC for a nation-wide long-distance telephone system that it claims will be cheaper and more efficient. Let us look at the efficiency records of railways.
When I worked on the railway after the Second World War, a parcel could be shipped from Winnipeg, Manitoba, and received in Nipawin, Saskatchewan, within 48 hours. Today it takes so long you may have forgotten what it was you ordered, Mr. Speaker. Telegrams were delivered within hours of the time they were sent. Today, if you have a phone and are available, Mr. Speaker, you may get a telegram the same day, but if not, a telegram takes as long as the mail, and we know what that is like.
Let us not forget previous promises and agreements that were to be in perpetuity but were not kept by the railways. Let us not be lulled into thinking that cheap rates charged by CNCP will continue once our efficient systems are destroyed. The promises of cheap rates will be for the short term. We do not want to have to buy our own telephones and switch boxes as we bought our own boxcars, nor do we want to build new satellites as we did rail lines. The burden on the taxpayer to keep the CNCP conglomerates living high off the hog has reached its limits.


Mr. Speaker:: I would advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



PORNOGRAPHY


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, a recent decision by the Federal Court of Appeal to repeal a section of the Customs Tariff that controls the importing of pornographic material into Canada has mobilized the anger of women's groups about the ineffectiveness of this legislation. The present situation is unacceptable, if we realize that for years, women's groups have been making statements, preparing briefs and publicly demonstrating their demands for inclusion in the legislation of a more elaborate and specific definition of the terms "pornography" and "obscenity". Mr. Speaker, we must not forget that in some countries, producers of pornographic material do not hesitate to torture and even

March 25, 1985
kill the actors and actresses who play in these productions, and who are mostly women and children.
Weak legislation that turns a blind eye will only encourage the production of such material. That is why we are asking for amendments to be made to the legislation as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, the women in the riding of Argenteuil-Papineau and women's groups across Canada cannot tolerate a situation where Canadian legislation is encouraging pornography.



THE PRIME MINISTER

Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, after the election the unreality of the Conservative promises became apparent. For the first six months the Government busied itself in the politics of style, photo opportunities, and information control. Now the hour of having to make decisions is fast approaching. We have already seen, in the universality debate and in the delays in releasing the unemployment insurance paper, that the shift from the politics of style to the politics of substance will prove to be internally divisive. What will the mighty Prime Minister's Office do to control all the loose cannons on its deck?
The Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) expensive office perceives the media to be a threat. The Prime Minister perceives Parliament to be a threat. The Conservatives learned from the election campaign that the Prime Minister must be isolated to the greatest extent possible, and the Tories have been implementing their own rose garden media strategy.
We remind the Prime Minister that he is not the president of our little state of America yet, and that he is obliged to meet his parliamentary responsibilities, including the attending of Question Period for a change.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has proposed drastic and discriminatory changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. On April 1 the Government plans to punish laid-off workers by counting their severance pay for U.I. purposes. I urge the Government to follow the advice given to it by countless labour and business groups and drop this discriminatory provision. If the Government is to follow its own rhetoric in terms of consultation, then it has no option but to abandon this cruel and heartless proposal.



FINANCE


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago if people in a small town wanted a new arena, they would clump their money together, volunteer their labour, and build it. Today the first thing that happens is the formation of a committee to solicit government funds. This is the legacy of years of Liberal practice when Canadians were bribed with their own money. High taxation meant that people had no excess funds for communal purposes, and the Government enticed people to become dependent on it for handouts.
The attitude exists today that whatever people want to do, whether it be in the field of sports, cultural activities, communal services or, indeed, even private business, they go cap in hand to Government for handouts. The proud spirit of independence that historically characterized Canadians and which has been destroyed by years of Liberal vote buying, must be returned. Grants, giveaways, and handouts must be discontinued so that Canadians can again become, both personally and individually, masters of their own fate.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said nearly two years ago in his book Where I Stand, and I quote:
Our priority must be to restore civilized dialogue and discourse to the partnership of government and to the relationship between the public and private sectors of the country.
Mr. Speaker, after the Throne Speech, after the economic statement by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), after the First Ministers' Conference in Regina, and after the Quebec Summit, we had the National Economic Conference on employment in Ottawa. This was an occasion without precedent in Canada's history, attracting 136 participants from all walks of life and all regions of this country. There were representatives of the business community, labour, consumers, native peoples, churches, ethnic groups, welfare agencies, the unemployed and the volunteer sector. They all addressed their views to the Prime Minister, and that, Mr. Speaker, is a realistic approach for achieving a truly national consensus.
March 25, 1985



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Last February 7, Mr. Speaker, I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to explain the situation of three women in my riding. All three are the same age, 62, all three pay the same monthly rent, $250, and all three get the same monthly welfare allowance, $427.
The only difference between those three women is that the first has been a widow for five years, the second has been separated for five years, and the third is single. I asked on the basis of what social justice the Prime Minister decided that the woman separated for five years and the single woman did not have similar needs and did not deserve assistance under Bill C-26.
Mr. Speaker, if that is the approach of the Prime Minister, I can understand why he did not reply, for he is behaving like a master of ceremonies everywhere in Canada and he has forgotten his responsibilities. I urge all Hon. Members to bring pressure to bear on the Prime Minister to convince him to change Bill C-26 and set $250 million aside for the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) rather than waste $610 million on armament.



STEVEN FONYO


Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention, and to the attention of Members of this House, the exploits of Steven Fonyo of Vernon, British Columbia.
This committed and dedicated young man, who lost a leg to cancer, has undertaken to run across this great country on his "Journey for Lives", in order to raise funds for cancer research.
Starting in St. John's, Newfoundland, he has steadily worked his way across the country in an awesome effort which has few equals. He has continued to run in the coldest and most difficult weather, even against the advice of his doctors and supporters.
Steven Fonyo has already succeeded in raising a great deal of money. But he has done much more. Through his determination and courage he has provided a great example to millions of Canadians, particularly young Canadians.
We live in difficult times. Young people, and even middle-aged people, are finding it difficult to find employment and to acquire a place in our society. The example of Steve's personal commitment and courage in the face of insurmountable odds has become an inspiration for all of Canada.
Oral Questions
As Steve Fonyo leaves Saskatchewan and runs into Alberta to attain his goal on the Pacific coast, I am certain the Members of this House will wish him Godspeed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps one of the reasons the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) finds that consensus on economic problems is so elusive is because the things which the Government continues to allow to happen belie the rhetoric which is in vogue these days about co-operation, consultation, and the new era of labour-management relations.
The House will recall that last week I raised the matter of the layoffs at CN and the fact that hundreds of people were being laid off while the company and the unions were in conciliation on a no layoff contract. At that time I also mentioned that those workers were given a two-week notice. The CNR is hiding behind a regulation in the Canada Labour Code which allows it to waive the normal period of notice if workers are receiving supplementary benefits of any kind. The fact of the matter is that most of the people who are to be laid off have not worked for the company for the required two-year period and, therefore, will receive no supplementary unemployment benefits.
In my view, and in the view of anyone who takes a good look at it, the CNR is being allowed to violate the spirit and the letter of the Canada Labour Code, insofar as there will be workers who will only receive two weeks' notice about their layoff but who will not receive supplementary benefits. Those workers should have had the notice which is required under the Canada Labour Code.
If the Government is serious about its rhetoric it will tell the CNR to smarten up and give those people the notice that they should have received, or, for that matter, it should cancel the layoffs altogether.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, after the economic summit which ended on Saturday after-

March 25, 1985
Oral Questions
noon, Mr. Andre Marcoux, representing unemployed youth, said the following, and I am quoting from the Gazette of March 25:

I did not come here expecting miracles, but I expected more than this.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, in the absence of the Right Hon. Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, whether the results of this economic conference would not have been more positive for young unemployed Canadians like Mr. Marcoux and many others, if this had followed the example of the Australian Government and submitted specific proposals to conference participants which would then have been used to establish a consensus.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very clear that there was a good deal of positive response in the various statements which were made by a number of the participants at the conference following its completion on Saturday afternoon. I can tell the House, and particularly the Hon. Member, that a number of the people spoke personally to me and indicated that they were very pleased with the results of the conference.
With respect to the specific question of the Hon. Member, we did have a document which formed the basis of the discussion at the economic conference. It was the economic statement of November 8. That has been the basis of the consultation process in all the areas which were covered. A very large number of areas were covered in the economic statement, and that statement has been the basis for consultation during the period since November 8 last.


IMPACT OF BUDGETARY CUTBACKS ON EMPLOYMENT GROWTH
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, if the November 8 document was among the papers to be discussed at the conference, why was it not on any of the tables where papers prepared by academics were being distributed? Mr. Speaker, as far as job creation is concerned, during the conference the Minister of Finance tabled statistics indicating that in 1985, employment growth will be only 1.9 per cent, compared with 2.5 per cent in 1984. Has the Minister already allowed for the budget cuts that are to be announced later on in predicting this very low figure for 1985?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, when we came into office on September 4 last, it was very clear that we were facing a slower economy in 1985. I indicated that in the economic statement which I made on November
8.	I should point out that since then, we, as well as many other economic commentators, have indicated that the projections which they made, and the projections which the Government made in November, should be increased because of the
improved confidence in the economy and, specifically, the improved economic results in retail sales, manufacturing, investment intentions, and the production and sales of manufacturing companies. There is a large number of specific economic indicators which show that things have picked up since September 4, and I would suggest to the Hon. Member that it is related to the economic statement which we presented on November 8.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION ON CREATION OF DIMINISHING NUMBER OF JOBS
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, if the situation has improved so much since September 4, could the Minister explain why during the last six months of the Liberal administration, 175,000 jobs were created and why during the first six months his Government has been in power, only 84,000 have been created?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asked that question before lunch, and I will give him the same answer. If we compare the 84,000 or 86,000 jobs which have been created since September with the identical period in the previous year, we find that the 86,000 figure is a good deal higher than the figure in the previous year. I think that is a good performance. I do not know why he is walking around under a little black cloud pointing out all the bad things, when there are a lot of very good things about which people are very pleased.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In late February the European Economic Community filed formal complaints against Canada with GATT, protesting the continuation of import quotas. The EEC notified GATT concerning its retaliatory measures against selected imports, including styrene monomer, which would be effective as of April 1. Polysar, a company based in my riding of Sarnia-Lambton, has a worldscale styrene facility and is the only exporter, with exports valued at $30 million per year.
Would the Minister of Finance respond to these concerns and tell the House if we are proceeding in negotiations to alleviate the possibility of higher duties? And are we trying to obtain complete removal of styrene from the list of products included in the retaliatory act?
March 25, 1985


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Hon. Member is very concerned about this matter, as are we in the Government. There are negotiations under way with the European Community authorities on this question.
As the Hon. Member knows, the threats by the European Community are in response to the actions taken by the Government to try to slow down the very happy exports from the European Community of veal and beef. We are in the course of trying to reach some satisfactory resolution of the matter. I am very much aware of the concerns of the Hon. Member, and 1 will keep him posted as these negotiations proceed.


BANKS AND BANKING
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Earlier today the Secretary of State for Finance announced that the Government was involved in a massive bail-out of the Canadian Commercial Bank. This involves $60 million in direct funding from the people of Canada through the federal Government in the form of an interest free pay-out, and another $60 million to come from the people of Alberta through their Government. The Minister of State said that there was no evidence that the bank in question was in difficulty until March 14 of this year. Would the Minister of Finance confirm that an official from the Inspector General of Banks informed him last September that this bank was in difficulty?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would confirm to the Leader of the New Democratic Party that, yes, in September I received notification from the Inspector General of Banks to the effect that he was aware of the difficulty which the Canadian Commercial Bank was having with its earnings and was monitoring the situation closely, as is the normal course when banks do experience this type of weakness in their earnings.
There was no suggestion at that time that there was any question of a risk of insolvency. That risk did come to the attention of the Inspector General of Banks on March 14, as my colleague indicated earlier today in the House. We have taken very speedy action in response to the notification by the Canadian Commercial Bank to the Inspector General of Banks, who immediately brought both the Minister of State and myself into the picture.


ROLE OF CHARTERED BANKS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister is now saying certainly departs from the implication which was left by the Minister of State at one o'clock today when she said that the Government had no sign before March 14 that the bank was in difficulty. What the Minister of Finance is now saying is that he was warned last September
Oral Questions
that the bank was in some difficulty, or that it was drawn to his attention.
Since the Government is now proposing that the taxpayers, through the federal Government and through the Government of Alberta, put up $120 million in interest-free loans to bail out this bank, why did the Government not use the time since last September to get the chartered banks of Canada-which are the most profitable in the world-to assume their responsibility in the private sector to move in and take corrective action and rationalize this bank without involving a bail-out from the taxpayers of Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me make it quite clear that what I am saying to the Hon. Member now is not inconsistent in any way with what the Minister of State said before lunch. What she said at that time, and what I said a minute ago, is that when the Inspector General of Banks became aware of this, he increased his surveillance of the bank in the normal way, as he would do in any situation where there is some deterioration in the normal operations of a chartered bank. During this period of time there had been a continued surveillance, but there had been no question of the solvency of the bank until it received the shock of the write-down which it was required to take on some of its operations in California. When that shock did occur, it pointed up the need for further action by the Government of Canada, and we responded very quickly to that need.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the kind of follow-up action taken by the Government consisted simply of the officials of the Inspector General of Banks making two or three additional visits to the Canadian Commercial Bank since it was said to be in trouble last September. I would say that this is hardly excessive monitoring of the system. Therefore, since the taxpayers of Canada have a lot of money at stake in this operation, will the Government do two things? Will it immediately establish a special committee of the House to look into the details of the proposed action of the Government? Second, will it mandate this committee to study the regulations pertaining to banks and trust companies over a two-month period only, and come back to the House with very specific recommendations so that we can avoid this situation in the future?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me point out that this situation, as the Hon. Member refers to it, is a very unusual circumstance. It happens very, very rarely in Canadian banking practice. I believe this is one of the reasons why the Canadian banking system is regarded around the world as one of the strongest banking systems in any country involved in the international community.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Let me remind the Hon. Member of what my colleague said before lunch. She is in the

March 25, 1985
Oral Questions
course of preparing, and will be releasing shortly, a paper on financial institutions which will cover the very important question of bank regulations and the whole monitoring process. I would think that at that time there will be many opportunities for Hon. Members to become more involved in making recommendations and commenting on current practices of the Inspector General of Banks and the Government of Canada in monitoring our chartered banks.


John Edward Broadbent: More discussions.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. At the weekend conference perhaps the one clear agreement which appeared was when 87 of the 136 participants signed a petition requesting that the changes in the unemployment insurance which are due to come into force next week, and which have the effect of making people who receive severance pay or pension benefits when laid off lose several weeks on unemployment insurance benefits, not go ahead. Would the Minister say whether she is prepared to respond to that request?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, these measures were announced in the economic statement of last November. I had the opportunity then of discussions over a number of weeks with representatives of business and labour in order to determine the fairest way in which these changes could be implemented. As a result of that, we announced a phased-in method which would come into effect at the end of this month. We think that is the fairest way to go about it, and those changes will be implemented accordingly.
I would say to the Hon. Member that what was apparent at that conference was that the unemployment insurance program is not meeting the challenges of our changing society. Therefore, the consensus which was expressed by everyone-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, the Minister's answer is verging on a speech.


DISCUSSION PAPER INQUIRY
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, following on the question the Minister raised about a broader look at unemployment insurance, may I know if we are going to have a discussion paper on that?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, that has yet to be determined. However, as I was saying, one of the consequences of the discussion in the workshop on unemployment insurance was a
very real consensus that the Act needs to be reviewed. One aspect I would think would be included is the question of labour economic adjustment and how the unemployment insurance program can be better tailored to those needs.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HON. FRANQOIS NGARUKIYINTWALI, MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND CO-OPERATION. OF RWANDA
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of Mr. Francois Ngarukiyintwali, Minister of External Affairs and Co-operation of Rwanda.


BANKS AND BANKING
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Earlier today the Minister of State for Finance, in presenting a statement to the House about the Canadian Commercial Bank bail-out operation, said that the federal Government will be providing some $73 million, consisting of $60 million as an interest-free infusion of funds and $13 million as its share of a purchase of subordinated debt. Will these millions of dollars from the federal Government come from an addition to the deficit or from the cutting of programs? If the latter, which programs are going to be cut?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member will understand that this particular support operation for the CCB was put together on very short notice. I can tell him that the final agreement was not reached until shortly before seven o'clock this morning, so we have not had any opportunity to consider the questions that the Hon. Member has put forward.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I must say that is rather surprising. When one has to deal with amounts in the tens of millions of dollars, in this case $73 million, I would think one would give some consideration to where they are going to come from. That is not a very good example of sound financial management.


REASON FOR SUPPORT
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Minister of State for Finance said that some $90 million in loans are going to be written off by the Canadian Commercial Bank. If this is the case I would like the Minister of Finance to explain why there is a rescue operation totalling
March 25, 1985

some $394 million, of which some $73 million comes from the federal Government alone?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I am not sure 1 understand the import of the question. We are participating in this support operation with the Province of Alberta, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation which is funded by premiums paid by the member deposit taking institutions, as well as the chartered banks themselves, which as a group are participating to the extent of $60 million. So I think that is a very broad support program for the bank indicating the confidence that not just the Government of Canada but the Province of Alberta, as well as the Canadian chartered banks, have in the future viability of the Canadian Commercial Bank and the important role it can play in the economy of western Canada.


DECLINE IN BANK'S NET INCOME
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance regarding the actions taken today on the banking question. The third quarter net income for this particular bank was down 61 per cent in 1983 over 1982. It was also down in its year end income, 1983 over 1982, by 24 per cent. In 1984 it was down 88 per cent over 1983. Given that, why did the Government not move in September when it was told that this bank had some serious difficulties? Why did the Government not try to find a private sector solution then, in keeping with the avowed intention of the Government not to inflict upon the taxpayers of Canada the cost of bailing out private operations?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my answer to the Leader of the New Democratic Party, we were aware through the operations of the Inspector General back in September of the prevailing situation with the bank and the fact it was suffering some decline in earnings. But as my colleague, the Minister of State, said before lunch, that does not indicate in itself that the bank is in a position of insolvency. It was not in a position of insolvency, so there was no need at that time to respond in the way that the Hon. Member has suggested.
We are hopeful that, as a result of the actions taken over the weekend in putting together this support package for the bank, a private sector-public sector joint package, which I think is a very important point to make-


Ian Deans: Mostly public.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: No, it is about 50/50. Both the private sector and the public sector have ongoing confidence in the bank and the position it can play in strengthening the economy of western Canada.


NOTIFICATION OF GOVERNMENT
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, why did the Minister not move when he was told that this bank was
Oral Questions
in serious difficulty in September, given two factors: one, that there was a serious net income deterioration over a period of two and a half years; and, two, that there was a close relationship between the board of directors of this bank and the owners and directors of three privately owned trust companies in Ontario which had to be closed by the Ontario Government?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered the first question of the Hon. Member, but let me answer directly and specifically the second question he asked. This was during the Liberal term of office so I can only quote what has been told to me by the Inspector General of Banks. When the Inspector General of Banks and the board of directors of the Canadian Commercial Bank became aware of the relationships between the promoters of Greymac and Seaway and the owners of Crown Trust, and the then chief executive officer of the bank, the board of directors acted very quickly. They fired Mr. Eaton and caused Mr. Rosenberg to remove himself from the board of directors. There was one loan at that time with the Canadian Commercial Bank which was related to Mr. Rosenberg's operations. That is the only active business relationship which prevailed at that time. So there is no connection really between the problems in the Province of Ontario and this bank. There is a continuing shareholding, but that is all.


CONSTRUCTION OF CARTOGRAPHIC INSTITUTE AT SHERBROOKE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. It was learned on Friday that Quebec is about to lose another $70 million, because the Minister of Public Works has ordered that all work on Sherbrooke's cartographic institute be suspended. The decision is not easy to understand since we also know that the Minister of State (Mines) stated last September 4 that he had the support of the Prime Minister, that he had been guaranteed the necessary funds, and that the construction would not be delayed. I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether pressure from the three Conservative Members from the federal capital region finally forced him to cancel or delay a $70 million project in Quebec, he who used to defend the interests of the province in the past.


Hon. Bob Layton (Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer the question raised by the Hon. Member regarding the proposed move of the mapping centre to Sherbrooke. As I reported to the House on Friday, this project, along with many others, is under a moratorium brought on by the Government's insistence that we review over
1,000	projects and programs undertaken by previous Govern-

March 25, 1985
Oral Questions
ments. We have requested that the study of on-going programs be continued and their review will be deposited soon. It will be available to the Member. In so far as the training program which is ongoing, Mr. Speaker, is concerned, I would simply advise that we have already placed five people from the Department to set up the training program. Twenty-four people will start training on April 1. As far as construction is concerned-


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister may want to make a statement under Motions. A supplementary question?


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the Minister ought to have the decency to acknowledge that this project will create 400 jobs, and saying that they are training 25 ... What worries me, Mr. Speaker, is that his senior Minister, Miss Carney, was reported as saying on December 10, 1983, that these were useless expenditures. I would ask the Minister how he can reconcile his statement today and the remarks of his leader last July 27: Decentralization is an objective to which we are committed. This is not just an ordinary election promise. The project will be carried out. Which one should we believe, him or his leader?


Robert E.J. Layton: Mr. Speaker, this project will be reviewed along with all other projects. There will be a decision taken. [Translation]
I would suggest that the indignant Liberals of 1985 must remember that, for nearly ten years, they failed to follow up on the hopes they raised regularly. Their indignation lacks credibility.


BANKS AND BANKING
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It is with regard to a statement that was made this morning by the Minister of State for Finance. She suggested that this bank, quite clearly, after this bail-out, will be financially viable and profitable. In view of the fact that it will be profitable, can the Minister of Finance tell us why he feels it is justified that $60 million of Canadian taxpayers' money be given tax free in this bail-out operation?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, fortunately we do not have many of these operations, but any time there is a support package like this put together it is important to get together a broad degree of support. In this case we have support from the private sector as well as two levels of government. This indicates to Canadians that good
confidence is being expressed in the future viability of the bank.
The Hon. Member asks why certain elements were chosen in this particular package. We believe that the deal which was put together represents the best interests of the Canadian taxpayers under the circumstances because of the type of arrangement that was put together.


INSPECTOR GENERAL OF BANKS-SIZE OF STAFF
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, frankly our concern is the Canadian depositors who are involved here. Why is it that the Inspector General of Banks, who has such a crucial role, has only eight field inspectors working with these banks when we now have 73 banks in our country? A great many of them are facing the kinds of problems which the Canadian Commercial Bank has experienced.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would caution the Hon. Member about stating his question in the way that he has. I can assure the Hon. Member that there are no other banks facing the problems that the Canadian Commercial Bank has gone through. The viability of other banks is not in question. As was indicated by one of the Hon. Members of the Official Opposition before, there are steps which have been taken in the past year to increase the resources of the Inspector General of Banks to take into account the broader range of banking activities that has developed in recent years because of the addition of the Schedule B banks.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Hon. Douglas A. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Last Thursday my colleague, the Member for Hamilton West, brought to his attention the case of the woman in Newfoundland who was being threatened with having her electrical power withdrawn unless she co-signed her child tax credit to that agency.
We now have government agencies in competition with legal loan sharks, called tax discounters, for the child tax credit. I would like an indication from the Minister of when he or his colleagues will bring forward legislation in the House to halt that horrific abuse of the child tax credit system.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in bringing the case forward from his colleague the Hon. Member should not use the one case as an indication that it is occurring either across a province or across the country. I have checked into it. I obviously cannot give the Hon. Member the details today, but I have written a letter to
March 25, 1985

his colleague outlining the specifics of the case she raised in her supplementary question.
The Province of Newfoundland has examined the case. As I understand it, it is not policy, and they have no intention of using deductions from the child tax credit in the manner that was described in the House last week.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Under Section 305 of the Criminal Code we protect Canadians from loan sharks by prohibiting interest rates from being above 60 per cent. Yet, in that same Act, we exempted tax discounters who are allowed to charge up to 90 per cent. When can we expect legislation to be tabled in the House of Commons that will prevent the abuse of Canadians by tax discounters?


Mr. Speaker:: It is a serious question, but it is not supplemental to the first question.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Sure it is.


Mr. Speaker:: No, it's not. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It is with regard to the announced changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act whereby severance pay and pension will be considered income for UI purposes.
The only consensus reached on the weekend at the federal economic conference was a petition handed to the Prime Minister and signed by 81 our of the 136 registered delegates. That petition called for the abandonment of the proposal. Without any bamboozling, flimflammery, or jiggery-pokery, is the Minister prepared to abandon the proposal and agree with the consensus reached at the conference?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Hon. Member could not have been at the National Economic Conference, as some of his colleagues were, so that he could have heard the many positive proposals that were put forward in the area of unemployment insurance. As I mentioned earlier, there was a consensus that the unemployment insurance program of today is not meeting some needs, particularly in the field of labour adjustment. It is for that reason that the Government intends
Oral Questions
to go forward with a review of the Unemployment Insurance Act.


REQUEST THAT IMPLEMENTATION BE POSTPONED
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has refused to deal with the substantive issue that the one consensus reached was that she abandon this scheme to treat severance pay and pension income as earned income for UI purposes. Is she now at least prepared to postpone the implementation of this program on April 1 to enable us to have the proper consultation with those involved across the country?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member was not listening when I answered that question earlier today in the House of Commons. It may not have been as sharply put, but it was asked before today and I answered it.
What he is missing, which he might have gained had he been at the conference, is that those measures must be seen in the context of an over-all look at labour economic adjustment. Those are the things we will be dealing with in the whole review of the Unemployment Insurance Act.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board. The seeded acreage of winter wheat has increased significantly in the Province of Saskatchewan. Many farmers quite rightly believe that winter wheat should be priced independently, in a different pricing pool, from spring wheat. Will the Minister assure producers that he will examine the possibility, before the harvest of winter wheat, of placing winter wheat in its own pricing pool?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: The Hon. Member raises an interesting question, Mr. Speaker. He is quite right. There has been a substantial increase in the acreage seeded to winter wheat. It looks like the crop will come through the winter in good shape. No doubt there will be more bushels of winter wheat harvested this year than in the past. That matter has been raised with me by many producers. I am in the process of taking it up with the Wheat Board to see if we can have a separate pool for winter wheat to reflect its economic value properly on the world market. I thank the Hon. Member for his representation.

March 25, 1985
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


BEEF IMPORT QUOTAS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence I will direct it to the Acting Minister. Last December the Government invoked the meat import law in response to the EEC dumping subsidized beef into Canada. Since then the Government has been retreating on these quotas which it has imposed. The Government has increased the United States quota from 21 million pounds to 65 million pounds. The Government is in the process of negotiating an increase of the EEC quota from 5.9 million pounds to 33 million pounds. Why is the Government backing down under pressure from the EEC and the United States, and not protecting the interests of the Canadian livestock industry?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Where's the beef?


Charles James Mayer: I thank the Hon. Member for his question, Mr. Speaker. To bring the Hon. Member for Algoma up to date on what is happening, Canada invoked, for the first time, provisions under the Meat Import Act, which the previous Government should have done in the previous fall.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles James Mayer: We have told our trading partners that we are prepared to negotiate with them to try to arrive at an agreement satisfactory to everybody. If we cannot arrive at a negotiated settlement, we are prepared to invoke the Act. In the meantime the European Economic Community has threatened retaliation. The Minister for International Trade is working with the EEC to work out a satisfactory arrangement that at the same time protects the meat industry while being fair to the other commodities against which the EEC has threatened to retaliate.
We have not increased the quota to anybody as yet. If the Hon. Member has information that I do not have, I would very much like to know where he got it.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, it is common knowledge in the trade. The Ministers should be reading their briefing notes better.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maurice Brydon Foster: I just want to point out that this is one of the most cowardly retreats the Government has ever undertaken. The Government is totally abandoning the beef producers.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Why did you not invoke the law?


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, why is the Minister not prepared to march into the GATT tribunal, and stand up and fight for the farmers and the beef producers of
this country, instead of taking the cowardly action that has been taken?


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, if we wanted to talk about cowards we would certainly have to talk about the behaviour of the Government from 1974 to 1975 to 1976 when it did absolutely nothing for the beef producers country when that Government could very well have done so.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Right on.


Charles James Mayer: Let me also tell the Hon. Member that it was not an act of cowardice when this Government invoked the Meat Import Act which this Party and the New Democratic Party supported when it was passed by the previous Government. We are not being cowards. We are living up to our responsibilities on behalf of the total agricultural industry to see that we have a chance to trade, and to trade fairly, internationally.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NORTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENCE
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Prime Minister, but in his absence I will put it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Why did the Government commit itself to the development of space based system technologies in the North Warning System agreement when the development of space based systems is forbidden by the ABM Treaty?


Charles Joseph Clark: Would the Hon. member quote specifically from the portion of the agreement to which he is referring, Mr. Speaker?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I would have thought the Secretary of State would have had that at his fingertips.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: It is forbidden by the treaty.


Ian Deans: It is bad enough when you have to tell the Minister what is in his agreements.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I was under the impression that the Secretary of State for External Affairs was aware of what was in the treaty.
March 25, 1985


UNITED STATES STRATEGIC DEFENCE INITIATIVE
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The Secretary of State has promoted SDI's effects on job creation. Will he also table in the House all the studies done by his Government into the effects of SDI on arms control agreements?


Mr. McKnight:: Order Paper.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what is abundantly clear is that I am aware of what is in the agreement and the Hon. member is not.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: He demonstrated that by refusing to quote his sources.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions
sistent with the principles of the ABM treaty which this Government supports.


Mr. Chretien:: I did not suggest that the Government should do that, Mr. Speaker.


AIRPLANE SALES INQUIRY
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the way the Government is acting today, with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, is that the only criterion the Government is employing to try to sell star wars or SDI to Canadians is the creation of jobs. If it is the only preoccupation, we should be consistent in Canada and give the highest priority and start to sell, for example, Buffalo airplanes that we have refused to sell to some countries because we did not want those planes to be involved in war.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, if the bow and arrow were being researched today, that Hon. Member and his Party would try to pretend they are part of the Stragegic Defence Initiative.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SALE OF CANDU REACTORS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the context of recent developments, we recall that a year ago the party to which he belongs was firmly against the star war. A month ago they were quite prepared to let President Reagan forge ahead with his program, but today they are interested only in the number of jobs which this program might create in Canada. I would like to ask the Right Hon. the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether this Government, primarily concerned with jobs creation rather than debates on international policy, intends to change our Canadian policy and authorize the sale of CANDU reactors to any country, even if it is not signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, so that there will be more jobs-indeed we did lose jobs because we had international safeguards which made Canadians proud?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 have no intention of accepting the suggestion of the Hon. Member that we should remove the safeguards that have normally affected the sale of CANDUs. 1 am surprised that the Hon. Member would make that suggestion here on the floor of the House of Commons.
Let me also take the opportunity to remind the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice, as he well knows, that both I and the Prime Minister speaking on Friday made it abundantly clear that any activities with which Canada might become involved with regard to the SDI project will be entirely con-


Charles Joseph Clark: The serious question that is at issue here is whether or not Canada is going to carry on its tradition of being involved in peaceful uses of space. We have done that with regard to the Radar Sat project which helps to forecast droughts. We have done that with regard to the Canadarm project which helped repair satellites. Does the Hon. Member and his Luddite Party want us to back away from all these activities too?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Are you for it? You sold your soul.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It concerns the bail-out of the bank this morning. When the farmers are in trouble, the banks and the Government are always saying "too bad". When home owners are in trouble, the banks and the Government are always saying "too bad". When small businesses are in trouble the banks and the Government are always saying "too bad". In light of that, on behalf of ordinary Canadians, why does the Government step in with an interest-free loan to bail out a bank when the Banking sector is the most profitable sector of the Canadian economy today?

March 25, 1985
Point of Order-Mr. Blackburn (Brant)


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member looked behind the circumstances of this particular support action he would see that the reason for us trying to work together with the private sector as well as with the Province of Alberta is that it is very important that we do not see any further deterioration of the Canadian Commercial Bank's operations because of the impact it would have on the economy of western Canada and the small business people there who are borrowing money from the bank and who might have their loans called prematurely and not be able to get alternate sources of financing. It is for that reason we felt it important to do everything we can to ensure the on-going viability of the bank. We believe the support operation that was put together over the weekend will achieve that.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the chartered banks have made millions of dollars off the people of western Canada.


ASSISTANCE FOR FARMERS AND FISHERMEN
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Will he use this as a precedent and provide interest-free loans to farmers, fishermen, and small business, because they are the organizations and groups which create real, long-term jobs?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Hon. Member that small businessmen, farmers, and fishermen are very important participants in the Canadian economy. This is why we took action in the November 8 statement to provide, in the case of farmers, fishermen, and other primary producers, relief from the farm fuel sales tax. We have the interests of these parts of the economy very much in mind in the policies of the Government.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORT
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) on Friday, March 22, 1985, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINT OF ORDER


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), in a very flippant way, asked me a question. He knows the rules of the House, that when I am putting a supplementary question, I cannot answer a question at the same time. However, I do have the source in the ABM treaty,
if the Minister should like me to read it now. May I have that right?


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid that is not a point of order. I appreciate the Hon. Member's difficulty but it is not a point of order.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: With all due respect, he also refused to answer my second question as a result of that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I presume the Hon. Member knows full well that he should give notice to the Table of a late show intent and use that provision which is available to him.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, as you well know, by unanimous agreement of the House we can do anything at a given time. It has been indicated by the Official Opposition that it would be in agreement with the Hon. Member tabling or reading out the section which was requested by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). I am sure the Government, having asked the question, would now give unanimous agreement for the Hon. Member to make the statement requested by the Minister.


Charles Joseph Clark: He wants to table a newspaper clipping.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: My goodness, we did well during Question Period; I am not quite sure what has happened.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We have a bunch of Henny Youngmans on the other side.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) seeking unanimous consent for something?


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, yes.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, particularly to my right.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Expel them.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I take it the Hon. Member is seeking to have a Private Member, not a member of Cabinet, table a document through unanimous consent?


John Edward Broadbent: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the Hon. Member also knows that traditions and standing rules in Beauchesne's and elsewhere prevent any Private Member, other than a member of the Cabinet, attempting to table a document through unanimous consent. I am therefore not-


John Edward Broadbent: On a point of order-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!
March 25, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore 1 cannot accept the request for unanimous consent for the tabling of the document.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages, and in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 46(2), the report of the Hon. David MacDonald, Emergency Co-Ordinator, African Famine. I believe as a result of consultations that there would be unanimous consent to have the report referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.


Mr. Speaker:: Rather than wait until motions, I take it there is unanimous consent for referral of the matter.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
STUDY BY STANDING COMMITTEE OF CNR PENSION SYSTEM On the Order: Government Notices of Motions:
March 22, 1985-the Minister of Transport:
That the Standing Committee on Transport be empowered to study all matters related to the Canadian National Railways' pension system;
That the Committee have the power to retain expert, professional, technical and clerical staffs; and
That the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House no later than June 30, 1985.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Section (2) of Standing Order 25, this Government Notice of Motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under Government Orders later this day or at the next sitting of the House.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 83, 111 and 251.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Angus: 1.	In the past year, how many construction and permanent signs within the jurisdiction of the Government were replaced, modified or repainted in order to display the name of the new Minister of each relevant Department and what was the total cost?
2.	Are more signs scheduled to be changed to accommodate the names of the Minister of the new Government and, if so, how many?


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: 1. Ministers' names are applied only to project site signs and to signs for Ministers' offices. Names are normally replaced on project side signs by means of vinyl overlays, which are made available by Supply and Services Canada; 43,240 overlays have been provided during the past year in response to departmental requests, which would permit modification of 21,620 project site signs. In addition, 38 signs were refurbished to replace Ministers' names. The total cost of all the changes is $12,575. This does not include the time spent by departmental staff in applying the overlays.
2.	Changes to the names of Ministers on signs are not subject to a schedule. However, few additional changes are anticipated.


Mr. Boudria: Since the September 4 election, how many Department of Supply and Services contracts have been awarded or filled by suppliers or contractors, originating in part or in whole, from the constitutency of Manicouagan and, in each case, what was the total value of the contracts?


Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Since September 4, 120 contracts and three amendments have been awarded.
Dollar Range of Contract	Total Number of	Total Dollar
	Contraci Awards	Value
0 - 499	44	$12,241500 - 999	15	$10,6451.000 1,999	24	$31,8012,000 4,999	26	$72,6285,000 - 9.999	5	$26,00010,000 and above	6	$512,604Amendmcni	1	$8321	$2,5001	$5,000


Mr. Nunziata: In what cities will the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service be establishing offices, and where offices are established, will CSIS be sharing accommodation with the RCMP?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Solicitor General of Canada):: Although at the present time CSIS is sharing accommodation with the RCMP at some locations, this will be temporary, and eventually all CSIS offices will be in accommodation separate from the RCMP. Also, there are no plans to establish CSIS

March 25, 1985
Supply
offices in cities other than those in which they are presently located, and they are as follows:
Separate	Shared	Anticipated SeparationLocation	Accommodation	with RCMP	DateVictoria. B.C.	X	1985Vancouver. B.C. Edmonton, Alberta	X	X	1985Calgary. Alberta Regina. Saskatchewan Saskatoon. Saskatchewan	X X	X	1985Winnipeg, Manitoba	X	to be determinedToronto. Ontario	X	1985London, Ontario Hamilton, Ontario	X	X	1985Kitchener. Ontario	X	1985Niagara Falls, Ontario	X	1985Windsor, Ontario	X	1985Ottawa. Ontario	X	X	to be determinedSudbury. Ontario	X	to be determinedMontreal. Quebec	X	1986Quebec City. Quebec	X	1986Halifax. Nova Scotia	X	to be determinedMoncton, New Brunswick	X	1986St. John's. Newfoundland	X	1985
Includes CSIS Headquarters and the Ottawa Regional Office.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Garneau:
That this House regrets that the Government has further postponed a budget thereby assuring that it will have gone more than eight months in office without taking any concrete action to create jobs and to establish the kind of economic confidence necessary for the realization of the hopes and aspirations of all Canadians, in particular, women, young people, farmers, fishermen, the elderly, natives and, above all, the almost one-and-one-half million unemployed.
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, when I was speaking earlier, I had begun to talk about trade arrangements between Canada and the United States. I had been pointing out that while our relationship with out greatest ally and chief trading partner is extremely important to us, it is also important that we negotiate well in all these matters because the United States has certainly shown itself very adroit in protecting its own interests in the past.
The United States complained long and hard about our Foreign Investment Review Agency, but that country itself prohibits or restricts foreign investment in many sectors of its economy-in coastal and freshwater shipping, aviation, nuclear and hydro generating, communications, financial industries, real estate, fishing, some mineral leases, dredging and salvaging operations, and the defence industries. As the House knows, the net of defence industries is cast very wide.
A comparison of relative investment is quite interesting. For instance, mining is approximately 40 per cent foreign controlled in Canada and approximately 5 per cent in the United States; oil and gas, something between 50 per cent and 60 per cent foreign controlled in Canada as against 18 per cent in the U.S.; and manufacturing, something around 48 per cent foreign controlled in Canada compared with 3 per cent in the United States. The whole basis on which to consider investment policy in the two countries is different.
The U.S. economy, which is so greatly admired by the Government opposite, is not without problems. Some of those problems may impact upon us unless we plan carefully to protect ourselves. The United States has an enormous trade deficit. If at some point it becomes concerned about it and decides to act on it, we will certainly be open to injury. For instance, Ontario alone exports more into the United States than does Japan. The United States also has an enormous deficit which, of course, is fuelled by enormous defence spending. This is a situation which may change. International banking institutions may very well become concerned about the fact that the United States is so greatly over-extended by some standards. If there are major changes in the way the international community looks at this, we might be very vulnerable if indeed we have put all our eggs into that basket without proper negotiation and safeguards.
Approximately 80 per cent of our trade is now with the United States. Does the Government plan to leave that more or less as it is and to continue, as did the Liberal Government, to encourage exporters to find other markets, particularly Pacific Rim countries, or is the intention to lock us in more closely with the United States? These are things to which we should know the answers.
In talking about trade arrangements, particularly a trade treaty with the United States, it is impossible to do that unless one also looks at the whole question of emerging technologies, emerging competition from the less developed countries, the effect of this on our own industries and the need to protect our people, be it with retraining grants or labour adjustment programs. This whole package needs to be considered very carefully.
It may very well be that the Government is considering all this, but we do not know because less and less is being debated in this House. More and more is being dealt with by way of press release and statements outside the House. There are very few things that are more important to us than the present state of the economy. All of us were elected by people who have had
March 25, 1985

an enormously difficult time living through the recession. They are hurting and are looking for some help.
When we began this session, the position of the Official Opposition was, and still is, that any measures that are put forward by the Government that are constructive we will support. That is still our position, but it gets increasingly difficult because we are not seeing measures introduced in the House. Our questions are not answered. They are responded to by one-liners. The Government seems to be still fighting the last election.
May I end by making a plea that this Government proceed to take its responsibilities, give leadership and take us into its confidence. Try and deal in a civilized and responsible fashion with the Members of the Opposition, and you will find very ready co-operation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments? Resuming debate.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on the motion before the House today introduced by the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) on behalf of the Liberal Party. The motion condemns the Government for not bringing in a Budget by this time. It talks about the importance of jobs in this country and mentions many groups in our society, such as young people, farmers, fishermen, the elderly and native people.
I want to say at the outset that I cannot recall in all my years in the House a newly elected Goverment taking so long to bring in a Budget. Last November, of course, we had an economic statement by the Government. In that statement we saw some indication of the way this Government wants to go. We saw them being Liberals once again. They brought in the 1 per cent increase in the sales tax which the Liberal Minister of Finance, "old ironclad", introduced in this House about a year or so ago. They announced that they would increase the price of fuel in this country up to the world level. That showed some indication of where this Government wants to go.
We saw in the economic statement the program of restraint being practised by the Government whereby it cut several billion dollars off government spending. I assume by doing this, instead of creating jobs in this country the Government is creating more unemployment. It was slowing down the national economy, putting less money into the hands of ordinary Canadians. Therefore, ordinary Canadians had less money to spend.
That is the opposite direction that we as a nation should be going at this time. I remember very well the election campaign of last summer. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), then Leader of the Opposition, said time and time again across this country that there were really three issues in the campaign: jobs, jobs, jobs. At that time I expected that if the Conservatives won the election, we would have an early Budget and the emphasis would be on job creation. I was very surprised to see that Budget put off by several months and to see it further delayed now until the latter part of the month of May. He has
Supply
broken a campaign promise. He has a very important mandate to deliver jobs for ordinary Canadians.
On September 4 there were about 1.5 million Canadians unemployed. As I stand here today at the end of March, there are still about 1.5 million Canadians unemployed. Where is the difference? What changes have there been in terms of what the Prime Minister has done?
I remember the beginning of July when the Prime Minister held a caucus with some of his western candidates in the City of Prince Albert. He said: "Elect me as Prime Minister and overnight there will be the creation of thousands of jobs". I know wise Members like the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) would not have made that kind of statement. He knows there is nothing magical about this. It is no wonder the Government failed. It could not create those jobs overnight.
Let us look at the most recent unemployment stats that came out a few weeks ago for the month of February. I find that unemployment in Canada in the last year has gone up in seven of our ten provinces. We find that in almost all parts of Canada. The unemployment rate is getting worse instead of better. That is why the priority of this House has to be the creation of jobs. That has to be the priority.
I was very disappointed at the reaction of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) at the National Economic Conference held in Ottawa a few days ago. There seemed to be a big split. The bankers and big business on one side were saying that the priority of this country had to be the deficit; to cut back on the deficit was the way to go, in the direction of Billy Bennett of British Columbia. That seemed to be what the bankers and big business were saying.
On the other side we had community groups, labour and other groups representing ordinary Canadians which said that the most important priority has to be the creation of jobs. One of the consequences of the creation of jobs in this country is that in the long run it would bring down the deficit in Canada. We would once again become a nation of producers, a nation of doers, producing goods and commodities for Canadians, producing those things that we can use in this country. If we bring down the unemployment rate, we would also be reducing the pay-out from the federal Government of unemployment insurance funds and reducing the pay-out from provincial Governments of welfare cheques.
For the life of me, I do not know why the Government goes through a consultation process if it is not going to listen to what it hears and if it is not going to act on what Canadians are saying. It is very clear that they are saying that the deficit is not the priority. They are saying the Government should spend money to create jobs, help small business, the farmers, fishermen and loggers. They say it should help the base industries in this country and from there there will be a ripple-up effect and the creation of jobs in this country. Instead of that ripple-up, this Minister is following some of the old Liberal policies of a trickle-down theory: government welfare for the rich, government welfare for the banks and the big companies, government welfare for those that have while the ordinary citizen has to pay a bigger and bigger tax bill.

March 25, 1985
Supply
1 am sure some of the Tory back-benchers are embarrassed by their Government's continuation of old Liberal policies. I ask those back-benchers to rise and say what they think and to make sure that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) keeps his promise that the most important priority in the country is jobs. As it was during the campaign, the most important priority in Parliament must be jobs. That is the reason we were all elected. That is our mandate. Yet we see no significant improvement whatsoever in job creation in the country.
During the last two months, I along with the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) and other members of this caucus had an opportunity to go across the country to speak to ordinary Canadians about jobs and about the future of our land. Two or three things I heard struck me as being very significant. First, the people say unanimously that the priority of this Parliament must be jobs and that politicians should stop fighting and bickering and come up with some national vision indicating how we might create those jobs.
Second, and I was surprised when I heard this in places like Newfoundland, the Canadian people are hopeful that something can be done. They are optimistic. There is hope in the face of adversity. There is hope that we as a country can get our act together and create jobs for Canadians from coast to coast.
The third thing that struck me was that there is a national consensus among Canadians from one part of Canada to the other that there are no magical solutions and no experts in national economic policy. Instead, they feel we should be putting a lot more say and a lot more money into the hands of ordinary Canadians from coast to coast so that ordinary Canadians in each community may control the economy of their own particular community.
Canadians are saying that we need more programs directed toward self-reliance in the various communities across the country. They say we need more programs to promote small business and worker co-ops and that there should be more programs to promote local municipalities so that they can have a say over the direction their community is headed.
I found that if there was a major theme in terms of critiques of what has happened in the past and up until now, it has been that we have had too many programs that have been centrally imposed on communities from coast to coast, that we have had insensitive bureaucracy and insensitive, centralized government that does not understand the needs of ordinary folk from one part of Canada to the other. I will never forget that in Newfoundland we heard criticism of over-centralization not just in Ottawa but also in St. John's. We heard that the provincial capitals are not giving enough assistance to the people to enable them to make their own local decisions. I am speaking of more economic and industrial democracy so that farmers will have more say over farm policies and fishermen will have more say over fisheries policies. There should be more assistance to small businesses and local co-op groups in order to allow them to do things on their own.
The projects to which I have referred may not be large projects. There has been a great deal of criticism of megaprojects, those grandiose schemes that over a few years would create tens and tens of thousands of jobs. Ordinary folk are talking about creating five or six jobs here and 10 or 20 jobs there. In British Columbia the same can be said of the logging industry. We could begin to process and manufacture more of our wood products in our own country. On the Prairies there are all kinds of ideas about building on our bases of grain and oil. We could give more federal Government assistance and aid to local and community initiatives thought up by ordinary people.
Time and time again it was pointed out to me that ordinary people had a much better idea about what would be viable in their own communities than some bureaucrat in Ottawa or some bureaucrats in the provincial capitals. This is the direction ordinary Canadians tell us they wish to take. They want a Government that will respond to that wish. They want more funding for local initiatives and worker co-ops. They want more technical assistance in the setting up and establishing of worker co-ops. The Government should take a look at the experiences of France and Spain with regard to worker co-ops. The people want more aid and assistance to small business.
There was a lot of criticism of government policy. We were told that too much is given to big business. Approximately 70 per cent to 80 per cent of funding to business goes to big businesses like the oil companies and very little goes to small business, the sector in which most of the jobs are created in the first place. That is the direction ordinary Canadians wish to take.
In addition, we heard that we should have a made-in-Canada interest rate policy. If we were to have a made-in-Canada interest rate policy and we brought down the real interest rate by 3 or 4 per cent, we would kick-start the economy. We could provide low-interest loans to home owners, farmers, fishermen and small business people so they could expand their businesses, build houses and put up structures across the nation. This would put Canadians back to work. Many countries have done that. However, it seems to me that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is afraid to take a step that is out of sync with the steps taken by Mr. Reagan in the United States.
It seems to me, and I am sure the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) would agree with me, that there is a two-pronged economic policy in Canada. The Government relies on private sector big businesses and on the United States and Mr. Reagan. Those are the two things upon which the Government relies for economic recovery in Canada. We say that that will not work. That will not put Canadians back to work. We must start doing things on our own. Interest rate policy is very important and I think that is something to which the Government must address itself.
The Conservative Premier of Alberta spoke about a real interest rate in Canada of approximately 4 per cent. With the rate of inflation at 3.5 per cent or 4 per cent, he is talking
March 25, 1985

about a 7 per cent interest rate rather than the 11 per cent interest rate we now have which is set by the Bank of Canada.
I ask a very sincere question, Mr. Speaker. Sitting in the chair, I know you must ask this question of yourself very often, Mr. Speaker. What is the difference between the previous Liberal Government and the Government that sits across the way?
[ Translation]
We still have the same Public Service, the same President of the Bank of Canada and the same Deputy Minister to the Minister of Finance in this country. We have the same monetary policy. There is someone down there who agrees with me. He said he agreed. He happens to be a Conservative backbencher.
Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that the present Government's monetary policy is exactly what we had under the Trudeau Government two or three years ago. Mr. Bouey is taking the Government's decisions, not the Minister of Finance, and I am sure the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) will agree, because 1 remember distinctly that when he was on this side of the House two or three years ago, he often asked why we did not have an independent monetary policy in this country. He often spoke about about the need for helping small- and medium-sized businesses, farmers and fishermen and for helping average Canadians with their mortgages. I ask you, Mr. Speaker: What is the difference?


John R. Rodriguez: There is no difference!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: There is no difference. Mr. Mulroney is a reincarnation of Mr. Trudeau. Everything is exactly the same. There may be a slight difference ... I think Mr. Mulroney is fonder of Mr. Reagan than Mr. Trudeau, but I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that is the only difference.


Mrs. Mailly:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Gatineau has just risen on a point of order, probably to remind us that the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) should, in referring to the Prime Minister, refer to him as such and not by name.


Claudy Mailly: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly on the details of the motion. The motion was introduced by the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) and reads as follows:
That this House regrets that the Government has further postponed a budget thereby assuring that it will have gone more than eight months in office without taking any concrete action to create jobs and to establish the kind of economic confidence necessary for the realization of the hopes and aspirations of all
Supply
Canadians, in particular, women, young people, farmers, fishermen, the elderly, natives and, above all, the almost one-and-one half million unemployed.
I would like to move an amendment as follows: I move seconded by the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That the motion be amended by inserting immediately after the word "natives" the following words:
"the disabled population, visible minorities".
1 do that because the Liberals have listed a whole series of people, including native people, farmers and fishermen, but two very important groups in our society have been forgotten-the disabled and the visible minorities.
The Abella report was tabled in the House in November. That report talked about affirmative action and employment equity for four groups in Canada. It studied women and three minorities-natives, disabled people and visible minorities. I think it was an oversight on behalf of the Liberal Party to single out a couple of the groups which were studied and forget about the disabled and the visible minorities.
In our action group on jobs, we found that Canadians tend to forget about the disabled. However, between 8 per cent and 10 per cent of Canadians are disabled. In terms of jobs, most of those people are discriminated against. Over the years, the federal Government has been very lax in providing adequate assistance in the Canada Employment Centres in terms of finding jobs for disabled citizens and in terms of training programs for disabled Canadians. Three or four years ago, Parliament established the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped. Our spokesman on the committee was the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young). He has made speech after speech in the House about the necessity for positive programs for disabled Canadians. The national organizations which represent disabled Canadians are disappointed that the Government has not taken enough positive action on their behalf. Therefore, if we are to discuss this motion today, we must as well do something for disabled Canadians.
Of course, the other group is that of the visible minorities. We all know that visible minorities have problems in terms of discrimination on the job and in job searches. In Toronto, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) and I spoke with a representative of the National Black Coalition, as well as people from other organizations which deal with racism. We were told about different studies which had been carried out in Toronto, and that it was evident from those studies that black people and visible minorities were discriminated against by employers. In one particular study, a black actor and a white actor went to various employers in the City of Toronto to apply for the same job. They had the same qualifications, the same general education and they were the same age. They also used the same approach. They found that time and time again the jobs would disappear when the black actor applied, but often an offer would be made to the white actor who applied either a few minutes before or a few minutes after the black actor.
It is time that we started to think more about and do more for visible minorities. In the City of Halifax we met with church groups which spoke about the problems of the black
Supply
population. It is wrong for the vast majority of black young people in the City of Halifax to be unemployed. It is wrong and it is unfair in a city and a country which has so much to offer. We must take a strong stand in this House on behalf of visible minorities and handicapped people, as well as those who are mentioned in the Liberal motion.
I appeal to the House to support our amendment. Also, in closing, I appeal to the House to fulfil the mandate which we have as parliamentarians-that the first priority is to create jobs. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) should stop listening to the bankers and big business in Canada and start listening to ordinary Canadians, small business, farmers, workers and fishermen from one end of Canada to the other. They will tell him a different story.
In the election campaign last summer, the politician who spoke the most about the deficit was the Leader of the Liberal Party. We saw what happened to him on September 4. I believe that Canadians delivered a message on that particular issue. The Government should not forget that message as it sets national economic priorities and prepares the Budget which will be brought down in the next couple of months.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the proposed amendment. We will now proceed to questions and comments. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young).


Mr. Young:: Mr. Speaker, I believe that anyone who has been associated with it will agree that employment is the key issue to the disabled community in Canada. Without access to adequate and decent employment, the disabled population is denied access to every other opportunity which every able-bodied Canadian expects to have as a matter of right. Without adequate employment opportunities, people are denied access to decent housing, transportation and education. Many Members are not aware that there are thousands of kids in Canada who are disabled-either developmental^ handicapped or otherwise-and who are completely denied access to education across Canada. If we hope to provide disabled Canadians with equal access to transportation, education, recreation and communication, the key element is the access to employment opportunities.
Could the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) tell us if any witnesses came before the task force on jobs, to which he referred, to give evidence on the lack of employment opportunities adequate training and government assistance, which, if adequate, would provide those employment opportunities?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we heard from organizations which represented disabled Canadians. Their main concern was jobs and how they felt discriminated against. Indeed, ,hey felt that municipal, provincial and federal parliamentarians had forgotten about them in the planning and organization of our society. I remember speaking with a gentleman who I believe was the president of an organization for disabled people in Halifax. He told us that the federal Government, in the Department of Employment and Immigration, had only
March 25, 1985
one co-ordinator to deal with disabled people in the Atlantic provinces. He also said-and I have not had a chance to check this-that the Department had one co-ordinator in Quebec, one in Ontario and one or two in the West. He pointed out that too little priority had been given to the needs and aspirations of disabled Canadians. He put forward several recommendations as to what should be done to improve the situation. The other point which he mentioned was that the recommendations which were made by Judge Abella concerning disabled Canadians should be implemented. His concern was that all the good sentiments in the world and all the voluntary guidelines probably would not work. He said that if these affirmative action and employment equity programs were going to work there would have to be mandatory regulations and guidelines with specific targets, goals and objectives. However, the Minister of Employment and Immigration has not provided that. We heard the fear expressed that without those specific targets and goals-as has been proven elsewhere-it would not work in Canada.
Once again, I would refer to the task force which was agreed to by all Parties in the House during the last Parliament. In the report of that task force many other recommendations were made for which disabled people in Canada are pushing very hard.


Mr. Malone:: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), in the course of his speech-as other New Democratic Members have done for some months and, indeed, years-has embarked on a sematical word which I believe is dangerous and misleading. They say that they are the defenders of the ordinary Canadian. Obviously, that view has a great deal of attractiveness in the hearts of Canadians. It naturally would, because all Canadians believe they are ordinary. I believe Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party should be called to task for using the word "ordinary" repeatedly as they do. Do they have an operative definition of who is ordinary? Why is it that those Hon. Members, as a Party, cannot support people who are imaginative, unique or extraordinary? Why do they create a caste system which sets certain groups of people aside and then say, "We will defend those people"? Would the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) stand in his place and give us an operative definition of an ordinary Canadian? Who belongs to that limited group which those Hon. Members, if they were ever in Government, would pretend to support? Who are that narrow bunch of Canadians?


John R. Rodriguez: You are, Arnold.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I think a good example is the question I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) today about assistance to one of the banks and the fact that the taxpayers are giving an interest-free loan of several millions of dollars to this particular bank. I do not consider banks to be representatives of ordinary Canadians. I asked the Minister whether or not this bill will be a precedent for interest-free loans. In other words, would farmers receive the same kind of

March 25, 1985

consideration? A lot of farmers are going bankrupt across this country.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Who do you think borrows from the banks?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: When was the last time you got an interest-free loan from the bank?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) asks me who I think borrows from the banks. I have a lot of farmers in my riding who borrow from the banks and those banks are charging these farmers usurious interest rates right now.


Mr. Mitges:: Right on.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I know the Minister does not agree with that, but her seat-mate does. I know he agrees because he knows a fair amount about the ordinary citizens in his own riding. I can point out all kinds of farmers in my riding who are in difficulty and I am asked time and time again: if there are going to be interest-free loans for the banks or bail-outs of big companies, why can't we give the same consideration to ordinary farmers, fishermen or small business people? What is good for the goose should be good for the gander, I say to the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone). Why that difference? Is that what "Progressive Conservative" means? I know it is a continuation of the policies of the old Liberal Government. I do not like it. I do not find Canadians like it either. But that is what we mean by "ordinary Canadians".


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly want to draw to the attention of the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville that when we protect a bank from going bankrupt, we not only protect the bank but we protect all of the investors and the people who use that bank. The Hon. Member knows that if we should let the banks go into default, there would be literally thousands of Canadians-who the Hon. Member has just bracketed as "ordinary" Canadians-who would end up being very badly crushed. When the Hon. Member gives his thesis that he is for small business, he really is saying he is for small business until the small business becomes successful. As soon as it becomes successful, he is no longer with it. Those Hon. Members only want to be for the little fellow.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville to know that the creation of jobs throughout the country is dependent upon the imaginations and ingenuity of Canadians everywhere. Certainly, to present some kind of euphoric notion that there is a group of people across Canada who are unordinary, who do not belong to this caste system the New Democratic Party supports, is not at all in keeping with the nature of this country. Any Government which comes to power ought to be a Government which stands for all Canadians, for all productivity. It should not try to create a caste system, as the NDP are doing, by picking out a group of people here and there and saying, "Those are the ones we support, the rest be darned". That Party seems to take the view that it is for the little businessman. What happens to the
Supply
little businessman when he becomes successful? The NDP casts him aside. He is no longer ordinary.
The Hon. Member did not give an operative definition of an "ordinary" Canadian, he cannot think of one.


John R. Rodriguez: You weren't listening.


Arnold John Malone: He may not have time to respond now but he can write me a letter. I challenge him to give me a definition of an "ordinary" Canadian, because every Canadian is an ordinary Canadian.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Give him a chance.


John R. Rodriguez: Sit down and give him a chance.


Arnold John Malone: Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party who shout "sit down", thus showing disrespect for this Parliament, should know very well that they cannot continue to get away with appealing with semantic words which tug at the heart-strings of Canadians without ever being called to account. The words they use over and over again in fact are meaningless. Those Hon. Members have no operative definition. They should start dealing only in facts and not in pure rhetoric.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, as I listen to the Hon. Member for Crowfoot, I think he must have listened carefully over the years to Ernest Manning. The Hon. member certainly follows Ernest Manning's tradition in the way he speaks in this House.
If the Hon. Member wants a precedent, Mr. Speaker, where a Government did not bail out a bank, I can tell him that the Conservative Government of Saskatchewan did not bail out Pioneer Life. That is a precedent. I suppose this Government would like to bail them out. I am not exactly sure where it stands. What I am saying is that if the Hon. Member for Crowfoot wants to find some ordinary Canadians, he should come to my riding and I will introduce him to the farmers in my riding who are very ordinary Canadians and who would like the same kinds of breaks from the federal Government as it is giving to the banks. If the Hon. Member wants to continue standing up for rich Canadians, that is fine with me, but there will be an election in this country in three or four years and the population will respond. If the Conservatives are as insensitive as the Liberals were a few years ago, they will go the same way as the Liberal Party.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, it is always refreshing to hear the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) with respect to bail-outs. It was only last week that the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) was complaining to the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) that she would not come to the assistance of the Pioneer Trust Company. This morning, the Hon. Member's own confrere from Hamilton was making the same complaint. Now we hear the Hon. Member complaining about the fact that the Minister of State for Finance was able to organize

March 25, 1985
Supply
largely a private sector agreement to come to the assistance of the Canadian Commercial Bank so that all sorts of small depositors, small business people in the Edmonton area, would not lose their shirts completely.
The Hon. Member knows, and ought to know, that the economy of western Canada is, to a large extent, in tatters, mainly because of the national energy policy. He knows that if that bank had gone bankrupt-and it would have had there not been assistance from Canadian banks, from the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, from the Province of Alberta, and from the federal Government-all sorts of small business people would have lost everything. The damage would have been immeasurable in the Edmonton area. But we have managed to solve that problem on a temporary basis so that we can get things going again. There is no question about it, that bank will be able to be prosperous. I remind the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville that the people participating in the arrangement will be able to participate further in the profitability of the bank as they take up share warrants in connection with the arrangements.
This motion is perhaps the most ridiculous motion which has ever come before this House. I am indeed surprised that the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) would ever bring a motion of this nature to this House of Commons. The Hon. Member complains that a budget has not come out as if a budget was the only thing a government does. Those Hon. Members have some idea that governments are here to make budgets. Surely governments are here to run the country. And this country is being turned around, and has been turned around from September 4 until now. A budget will be produced in due course. There is a lot which has to be done which does not and did not require budgetary help.
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville, for example, said that when he went around the country he found that Canadians were tired of being oppressed by the central Government in Ottawa. He said there was no sense of co-operation and we cannot pass rules in Ottawa which are enforced in towns across the country such as Vancouver and Saint John. That is right. We understand that. That is why we have been able, for the first time in some 15 or 16 years, finally to get the provinces and the federal Government together. This way we can have a consensus on how we should proceed with medicare, education, retraining.
The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) made a deal with the provincial Ministers of Labour and Employment to get summer work for students in a new job-creation program, a program which is working darn fine in my riding. People are offering jobs to students for the first time because they now feel the Government of Canada understands their requirements. They want to co-operate, get aboard and be part of building Canada. They want to give the youth of Canada an opportunity. We have a Government that understands business, the provinces, labour and all those elements in the economy who want to work together. This motion says that nothing has been done about job creation, but that is just not so.
The motion goes on to refer to the economic confidence necessary for the realization of the hopes and aspirations of Canadians. Let us talk about economic co-operation. First of all, we have the provinces getting together. Bit by bit we are breaking down the trade barriers which exist between provinces. More important, the problems we have had with international trade, particularly with the United States, are being solved. That conference a week ago in Quebec City was the culmination of a whole series of negotiations which have been going on. Member after Member has criticized the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) with respect to the salmon fishing treaty on the West Coast. We know that he has been around the outports of the West Coast bit by bit, getting advice with respect to the salmon treaty, and we now have an agreement which the previous Government had not been able to reach for years and years.


James Douglas Manly: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), would not want to have attributed to her the responsibility for making the salmon treaty which was imposed on the people of British Columbia. It was the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I am very pleased that we now have recognition that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) has been doing a first-class job. We have the recognition that we have a treaty that they could not organize in a decade. Why not? Because there was no sense of co-operation between Canada and its largest trading partner, the United States of America. We were concerned, and British Columbia was particularly concerned, with respect to the question of softwood lumber. We have already taken virtually one third of the American market for softwood lumber and we were very much in danger of having our lumber exports subjected to countervailing duty. That fear has gone. We were in danger of having our potato exports subject to countervailing duty, and that fear has gone. We were very much in danger of having our steel industry virtually banned from competition in the U.S., and to a large extent that fear has gone.
Members opposite talk about economic confidence. The business community has economic confidence when it sees a Government prepared to get tough and act and to be sensible with respect to trade matters. It is a Government which is prepared to consult. It understands how we must finance export trade. Papers have been produced for discussion with the business community concerning export financing through the banks and other financial institutions. They, too, can then participate the way they should in financing those exports. We will shortly be producing new methods by which the Government will use the financial institutions of this country to develop trade. To say that economic confidence does not exist because somehow a budget has not been produced is just utter drivel. The opposition says that this is not a long time to wait for a budget. Do you realize there was a Government elected
March 25, 1985

on February 18, 1980, and it was not until way on into October of the same year that it finally produced its Budget? Oh, yes, there was an economic statement in April, but we produced an economic statement in November. It is the same type of situation.
We have a situation, Mr. Speaker, where for every dollar we spent in the first 10 months of this fiscal year we took in only 64 cents in taxes. The other 36 cents had to be borrowed. They may well say we are to blame for the management from September 4 until January. But they cannot do that because we have not had a chance to take it over and really get at it. The situation is that the spending is built into programs that were developed five years ago, ten years ago, two years ago and continue to require further funds. They continue to grind away.
Let us look at housing as an example. Under CMHC, and this is but one example, in order to finance new construction of social housing we made loans and guaranteed the interest at 2 per cent. When an apartment building is built and the mortgage is 15 per cent, the subsidy is 13 per cent. But it is not just the subsidy in the year the building is built, it applies the following year, the year after that and the year after that. Virtually all the money set aside in the Estimates for CMHC today are to pay subsidies on buildings built two years ago, five years ago, eight years ago and so on. That will be the situation not next year and the year after but for the next 25 or 30 years. These costs are built in liabilities of the Government of Canada.
So we called together last week the leaders of business, labour, consumer groups, social groups and educational groups from across the country to find out what they thought we might be able to do. To some extent those groups are both the solution and the problem, because many of those people have been involved all the way along in the decision making which has led us to the position we are in. We are criticized for that, but how can you criticize a Government which has enough ability to get Bob White, Dennis McDermott and Louis Laberge in the same room with Rowland Frazee? I say to you, Sir, that that demonstrates our ability to get Canadians working together again.
If we are ever going to solve the economic problems of this country it will be because we get Canadians working together again. The unfortunate situation over the last 15 years is that we have had a Government of confrontation. We have had a Government which has pitted labour against management, management against management, provinces and Territories against provinces, native people against farming groups, farming groups against city dwellers and so on. We have to end that confrontation. We can never build this nation by fighting each other. Heaven knows, we have enough problems as it is in this cold half of North America building a nation in the first place. But to build a nation when you are already deeply in debt, fighting against each other will not help. When Canadians elected us on September 4, they elected us to build together. They did not elect us to do nothing. However, they did not elect us to destroy a fragile recovery through ill-conceived and
Supply
ill-thought-out actions. With regard to farm financing, it would have been very easy to fulfil immediately the promises that we made under Section 31 of the Income Tax Act with respect to capital gains on farm-land and agri-bonds. We could have done that by fiat. However, even farm groups are not in favour of some of those matters. Why would we do them without consulting and without public hearings? Members will know that we have had public hearings. The Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs will be reporting on these matters prior to its mandated requirement of April 1.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will take that report into account in preparing his Budget. Obviously he cannot prepare the Budget without the report. Obviously he cannot do things that will damage our fragile recovery without input from all sectors in the economy and without the understanding of how what is proposed in one sector of the economy affects another sector of the economy.
To say that it is somehow a terrible delay to wait until the week of May 20 is to be a bit naive and a bit ridiculous. We could go ahead and do everything we said we were going to do without consulting, but then it would be complained that we did not consult. We have consulted and we will continue to consult. There are 1.5 million Canadians out of work. There are fewer Canadians out of work today than there were at the time of the election. There will be a lot fewer Canadians out of work as time goes on. It takes a while for business confidence and a new attitude to develop to enable new employment and new job creation to take place. It does not happen overnight.
We have proposed a lessening of controls on foreign investment, but that does not mean that people from abroad will pour their money into our resources. It does not mean that all of a sudden new jobs and opportunities will develop as a result of the change in the statute. However, the change in the statute is a worth-while effort to encourage people to come to Canada and invest in the country.
They say that we have not done anything for small business. We proceeded with the Small Business Loans Act to make it more sensible and to make the banks more responsible for it. That move will enable more funding to be available for small business.
Rome was not built in a day, Mr. Speaker. Our problems of a $35 billion deficit and a $190 billion national accounts debit did not build up overnight. It did not happen just by itself and it is not going to change just because we will it to change. Over the terms of past Governments we have built up a habit of liking a whole lot of government service. However, we do not have the ability to pay for that government service. In our own constituencies we have built up a bad habit of asking the Government for hand-outs.
The other day Domtar came to the country and asked for a hand-out of $100 million. Member after member of the Liberal and New Democratic Parties stood up and demanded that the Government hand over $100 million to Domtar. That is how a great, big national debt is developed. You can only have

March 25, 1985
Supply
the tailor make you a suit with the amount of cloth he has. We have been trying to get too much out of what we have. As responsible Members of Parliament we must realize that. As responsible Members of Parliament we must tell our constituents that rather than looking to government for everything they must do a lot on their own. They must build the country. Co-operatively we can do that.
The Member for Laval-des-Rapides ought to be ashamed of this motion. I appreciate that it is a non-confidence vote. I suppose it would have been easier for the Official Opposition to have merely said, "That this House regrets it has no confidence in the Government" and left it at that. However, he went on to say why he should have confidence in the Government. That being the case, it seems to me that members of the Opposition ought to decry this motion and vote against it, because the motion is a summary of why the House should have confidence in the Government.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). I respect him and what he says in the House. I know him quite well and have known him for quite a while. Before his Party was elected he used to talk about how interest rates are too high in the country. He is shaking his head. I can hear him.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: You can hear him shake his head?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I can hear him all the way over here. I don't hear very much, only an echo.
He used to make speeches time and again from this part of the House. I simply want to know whether he agrees with the Government's monetary policy. Does he agree with the interest rate policy? I know he is very blunt. If he does not agree, he will tell me, if he does agree, he will also tell me. I know he knows the situation very well. Interest rates are much too high in this country and ordinary Canadians-I guess that is all Canadians except for Jack Horner, in answer to the Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone)-farmers, fishermen, small businessmen and home owners need a made-in-Canada interest rate policy. It must be much lower than it is now. Does the Hon. Member agree that Gerald Bouey should call the shots? Does he agree with the Government's interest rate policy?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I think I should instruct my secretary to make a collection of the speeches I have made in the House on interest rates and to send them to the Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). If he would like, I will discuss them with him so that he will understand how the determination of what interest rates is made. He ought to know that interest rates are a function of the supply and demand for money reflected, to some extent, by the risk a lender takes. On that basis we in this country are paying nearly 2 per cent more than the American Government is paying for its money. That is largely because the public views us as a greater risk. If we did not carry the horrible national debt that we do and if we were running our affairs more sensibly, we would borrow our money considerably cheaper.
If the Governments of Canada and the United States were not sucking up the money from the private savings of their citizens in deficits, money would be considerably cheaper. As the Member for Crowfoot says, there is no such thing as ordinary Canadians. It happens to be a fact that all taxpayers of Canada are paying the interest rates we are paying. The Government of Canada is the largest borrower. The taxpayers of Canada are the largest payers. From looking at the Estimates the Hon. Member will realize that the estimated cost of the national debt this year is in excess of $25 billion. That was calculated on the basis of a supposed interest rate averaging 10.6 per cent. He will know that at the present calculation that figure is wrong and that we will probably have to spend considerably more than $25 billion to carry the outrageous borrowings that we have.
The Hon. Member will also know that interest rates dropped half a point last week. However, that is not good enough. He will know that that is not good enough. I know that is not good enough. The farmers, businessmen, and home owners know that is not good enough. If we had some sensibility in the economy of this country rather than the yapping of the New Democratic Party demanding more, more, more, then we would have lower interest rates.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I think it takes a yapper to recognize one.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Hon. Member is talking about all these people who have savings and so on. I do not know if he recognizes that according to a report in The Globe and Mail recently nine families have half their stocks and bonds in the Toronto Stock Exchange. Since so much wealth is controlled by so few, why would the Hon. Member not agree to bring down interest rates in Canada and, if need be, use foreign exchange controls or an interest equalization tax or something like that for investments of over $50,000 or $60,000 which would affect people who are not ordinary Canadians? There are nine families who control about half the assets on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Why does the Hon. Member stand up for those rich friends of his when we could be doing something for ordinary Canadians?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Never has so much been owned by so many to so few.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I think what the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville would like us to do is to have foreign exchange controls like those in Brazil, Mexico, or Argentina, and then we could also have interest rates like those in Brazil, Mexico, or Argentina. Under that kind of regime which the Hon. Member has in mind, we would be assuring poverty for my children and for my children's children's children, and 1 suppose they would then become ordinary Canadians.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I heard the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) say that the threat against
March 25, 1985

Canadian softwood entering the United States has been removed. If that is the case, could he explain to the House why the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) has gone to Washington today reportedly to deal with that very problem?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that the imposition of controls on the importation of softwood lumber has to pass the office of the President of the United States. Obviously, in a way these controls have to go through the House of Representatives and so on. It is important that our Ministers deal directly with legislators and people in the United States having an interest to make sure that as far as possible we ameliorate the problems of the threat of controls.
I say to the Hon. Member that the effect of the Quebec conference was essentially to give us access to the American market, subject to the tariffs but not subject to any unrealistic interference with our trade.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, let me raise a question with the Hon. Member. He suggested that there is a problem with exchange controls. Is it not the case that the country his Party now looks to as the exemplary model with respect to economic policy, that is the United States, put into effect an interest equalization tax under a Republican President in the early 1970s which certainly did not destroy confidence in the future of the United States? It had instead the effect of protecting U.S. currency at a time when it was under some pressure.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that that tax was immediately abolished because it was not accomplishing anything. He will know that that type of interference in the market-place will not work. More important, the Hon. Member will know that, with the long border we have, with the percentage of our Gross National Product directly involved with foreign trade, particularly foreign trade with the United States, to attempt to isolate and control every foreign exchange transaction that takes place between Canada and the United States would immediately create a disaster in our markets. It would probably immediately put hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of work. If there were an attempt to enforce foreign exchange transactions, it would require an army of policemen to the extent that we would get rid of our unemployment program by putting everybody in uniform.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, did this happen in the United States? Were there problems of enforcement or was there not quite a straightforward and simple system whereby the financial institutions reported to the Government? Did it not turn out in the United States to be quite easy to put an interest equalization tax into effect? Would it not be similarly easy here, given that we have a banking system that is quite highly concentrated and on which we could quite easily rely to do the policing involved?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, if one thought that one could somehow control the movements of foreign exchange and steer away from the market, I would think that was not the effect of the American equalization tax. It may have intended to be the
Supply
effect, but there were not any demonstrable differences that took place in what would otherwise be the market condition. If you take a look at a market condition where there is an advocacy for some control over foreign exchange to separate our interest rates from interest rates in the United States or world interest rates, the Hon. Member must know as an economist that with the number of transactions going back and forth across the border, and with the number of Canadians who hold large accounts in the United States and of Americans who hold large accounts in Canada, we would soon run into a massive problem.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period provided for questions and comments has now expired. The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. All-mand).

Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I want to start by immediately indicating our support for the NDP amendment tabled a few moments ago to add visible minorities and the disabled to the list of those who have been hurt by the lack of action of the present Conservative Government.
Last Thursday we had the eighteenth anniversary of the United Nations Day against Discrimination. On that occasion, the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Murta) made a statement. We responded. We made many of the same points that were made a few minutes ago with respect to visible minorities and the handicapped who have suffered a great deal of discrimination not only in employment but in many other areas of this country as well. We support that amendment very strongly.
To return to the motion before us today, Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate my full support and point out that once again by delaying the budget we have also seen a delay of specific action to deal with the unemployed. In addition, the delay has caused a great deal of economic uncertainty among those who would invest in new jobs and those who would wish to make their plans with respect to new plant, equipment, and so on. There is no comparison between the election in 1980 and the election last fall in 1984. The election in 1980 simply returned a Government that had been in power a year previously. It was the same Government. It had already produced budgets before 1980 and it was continuing in the same way. Here we have a new Government that has been almost eight months in office. We have not had a budget. We have had certain policy announcements here and there but the announcements have not been produced in a global way to give us an over-all picture of the Government's economic policy.
These delays are seriously affecting the unemployed, and measures that might be taken by the Government to put the unemployed back to work are affected. I should point out that there has been no delay with respect to cuts. Cuts came rather quickly after the election of September 4. Last November, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced, together with

March 25, 1985
Supply
the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) a whole series of cuts, which not only affected certain government programs but also put a large number of people out of work.
Just last week we had representatives of the cultural community in Ottawa. They were lobbying for the many jobs which were lost and will be lost in the various areas of Canadian culture-symphonies, orchestras, museums, theatre groups, ballet companies and so on. The Government did not wait to introduce these cuts. They acted right away, before they had anything to take their place in many instances. They cut out programs before they really knew what they would put in their place.
Whenever we ask Ministers or other government Members when they will bring in the programs they promised, over and over again they state that they have to wait because they are consulting. "Consulting" has become their favourite word. Of course we agree with consultations. It is a good thing, but it cannot be a replacement or a substitute for action. Many Members on the government side of the House make statements as if consultation was invented on September 4, that there never was any consultation before. I can forgive them because many of them are new Members and were not here before September 4. However, one would think they would read Hansard or be in touch with what happened.
I have a list in my possession which indicates some 12 consultative processes with respect to employment and employment-related matters in the last Parliament alone. One of them 1 had a lot to to with because I was Chairman of the task force on employment opportunities for the '80s. Several Members on the other side worked on that task force as well. We spent two years consulting across the country. We heard from nearly 400 groups and individuals on employment opportunities for the '80s. We published a report which was almost unanimous, except for two or three recommendations on which the Conservatives dissented.
We also had task forces on skills development leave and on major Canadian projects. There was In the Chips, which dealt with the effects of microelectronics on employment. We had the task force on labour market development, the Dodge Commission, the task force on part-time work in Canada, and the Ironside advisory panel. We had the House of Commons Committee on profit sharing in the labour market, the Economic Council report on "In Short Supply", and the Williams task force, on Outreach policy.
It is important to put this list on the record because I am becoming fed up with new Members repeatedly rising and saying that there has never been any consultation. There has been all kinds of consultation. However, there is something important which must follow consultation. This was done in the past, but it has not yet been done by the present Government.
Also, as a result of consultation there was the Economic Council report On the Mend and the Macdonald Commission which went across the country and heard evidence from many
groups from all facets of Canadian life. It has not yet reported. These examples are just in the area of employment.
Also there were task forces on the handicapped, on North-South relations, on a national trading corporation, on alternative energy, on regulatory reform and on pension reform. We had the Technology for Tomorrow Conference, which was much more broadly based than the conference last weekend. We had three major policy forums in 1983 with respect to international affairs, economic policy and employment. I could go on and on, but it should be placed on the record that consultation was not invented on September 4. There was a great deal of consultation during the last Parliament and under the previous Government. However, once consultation takes place, hard decisions have to be made. Sometimes those people with whom one consults will not be pleased because one cannot please everyone. I know the Government is trying to please everyone, but sooner or later when hard decisions are made, some will be alienated and will accuse the Government of not consulting with them.
I am a member of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I have a lot of respect for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie). When he says he consulted, I believe him, but many witnesses have appeared before the committee and have said that he did not consult with them in that the Bill he introduced did not reflect the advice they gave during the consultative process. Whenever a Government brings in highly controversial measures, of course those who are opposed will complain about lack of consultation. However, as I said, the Government is consulting on some things but not at all on others.
I should like to refer to changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act with respect to severance pay which will take place on April 1. The Government did not consult at all. It announced them in the House on November 4 or whatever was the date when the cuts were announced. Now we are receiving petitions and protests from people from all walks of life, including the Armed Forces, labour unions, workers' associations, professional associations and so on. They are asking the Government to delay the implementation of that measure until consultation takes place. They have pointed out some of the implications of that measure which could not have been foreseen when the announcement was made. For example, some people wanted to use severance pay to re-establish themselves in employment or to relocate from one area of the country to another. Some wanted to roll over the money by means of an RSP. Now they will not be able to do these things because the Government has decided that severance pay must be counted as income and that their unemployment insurance will be delayed. The money which they could have used to re-establish themselves in employment or for retirement purposes will have to be used for the necessities of life and consequently will not have the purposes which even the Government had in mind. It would be reasonable for the Government to consult on that one, if it really believes in consultation. It may be possible to
March 25, 1985

modify it in such a way that it will not harm the people I have mentioned.
Consultation is good, as I said, but it has to be followed up with action. Let us hope that we will have action soon. It is unfortunate that the Budget has to be delayed until the week of May 20, as was announced not in the House but at the conference last weekend. We will be continuing to push for some very specific action because the problems will not go away or diminish with wishful thinking.
We try to be as objective and as non-partisan as we can because jobs are important for all Canadians. In all constituencies there are people who voted Conservative, Liberal and NDP. They are not interested in bickering among themselves in the House. They are really interested in something being done to help them find work. However, one has the impression that many of the consultative processes are really media-type politics. The Government is not sure what it wants to do. It tries to bring people together so that it can jump in afterwards, pick up the consensus and lead. Instead of presenting ideas to these groups to discuss, white papers, green papers or whatever, the Government is trying to develop a consensus in the first place. I do not know whether that will work.
We have asked several times for the discussion paper on unemployment insurance, but we have not received it as yet. During the election campaign, as we on this side of the House have mentioned quite often, members of the Government pretended they had the answers. Again I refer to the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on July 5 in Prince Albert wherein he said that we would see tens upon tens of thousands of jobs being created just as quickly as the new Government could be sworn in.


Raymond Garneau: He said that?


Mr. Allmand:: Yes, he did. He made similar statements on several occasions. One would have thought, in listening to that statement during the election campaign, that the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party had done their consultation during the many years they were in opposition and when they had the time to consult with many groups. They gave the impression, wrongly, that they had plans for action with which they were ready to proceed immediately after the election, and of course they did not.
I do not fault them for admitting now that these problems, the problems of economic growth, or interest rates are complex matters because they are complex. We always stated that they were complex matters, despite the fact we were trying to act and produce jobs. We were not always as successful as we wished. Nevertheless, when we tried to explain the difficulties we were up against, they denigrated our answers. They ridiculed the answers and deceived the Canadian people into believing that they in fact had pat solutions, that they had the answers. It is for that that I criticize them, that deceit they practised during the election, not for the seriousness of many of their Ministers looking now for solutions. For those honestly
Supply
looking for solutions, I congratulate them, but for that deceit that they perpetrated on the Canadian people during the election campaign I find them greatly at fault. They will have to answer for that.
What have they done with respect to employment since the election? In addition to making a lot of severe cuts in the Department of Employment and other Departments, which led to a loss of jobs, they cancelled the First Choice program which would have put 100,000 young Canadians into jobs, giving them some experience at employment. They replaced it with a much smaller program called the Youth Training Option, a much smaller sort of trial project.
Let us look at the number of jobs created. When my party was in Government, I was often critical of them because they did not do more. The record shows that in 1978, 334,000 jobs were created; in 1979, 410,000 new jobs were created; in 1980, there were 314,000. In 1981, going into the recession, there were 297,000 new jobs. In the recovery year, 1983, more than
400,000	new jobs were created at a time when there was a great growth in our labour force. In that year, our labour force grew 58 per cent faster than the labour force in the United States. Despite the fact that 400,000 new jobs were created, the rate of unemployment remained pretty much the same because of this increase in the labour force.
In 1984, a year that was shared by both Parties in government, there were 250,000 jobs created in Canada up to the last count. In the second quarter, there were 108,000 jobs, in the third quarter, 67,000 jobs and in the fourth quarter 88,000 jobs created. There has been no dramatic increase in employment as a result of the Conservatives taking power, contrary to what they would have us believe before the election. In addition, they have not put before the Canadian people a plan that would lead to the creation of such jobs.
In answer to some of our questions about their cutting out programs, their answer has been that they do not believe you can solve the problem of unemployment by throwing money at problems, that you do not solve the problem by the Government continually intervening. Some of them believe that if the Government withdraws in certain key areas, the private sector will have confidence and create those jobs. So far, there has been no real indication that that is taking place. This is due to the fact that there has been no budget until now.
The private sector is not really certain in which direction it is going to go. It is quite plain that we have two parties within the Conservative Party. We have the Conservative ideologues, those who believe in the philosophy I just expressed, that if the Government withdraws, the private sector will produce. I do not support that. There are some people who believe very strongly in that, including some economists. A good number of people in the Conservative caucus and in Government believe in that.
On the other hand, there are the pragmatists who are attempting to run the Government by means of polls: whatever pleases they will do. We saw examples of that in the first six months that they were in power. First we had announcements with respect to the cuts in social programs or the changes in

March 25, 1985
Supply
social programs that would lead to a lack of universality. After a great deal of debate in this House and in the country, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) announced that there would not be such cuts in old age pensions and in family allowances and that they would approach it in a different way. That kind of "first we are this way" and "then we are that way" is not producing the confidence that is expected.
1 repeat, it is essential for this Parliament and for the people of the country to know the over-all global approach of that new Government to the economy so that all of us can then debate it in a proper way. Those of us who agree with it can support it. Those who wish to oppose it will oppose it. The private sector of the country and the voluntary sector, the trade unions and so on, can make their plans accordingly. They have 211 people supporting them. I suppose if they want to do something, they are going to do it, no matter what we do in this House. We will try to influence public opinion in this debate, but we know that we are not going to win too many votes.
The record can be checked. There has been no significant change so far. Canadians are still waiting. What can be done and what should be done with respect to employment? Again I am going to repeat what I heard in nearly two years of hearings across this country. I see, Mr. Speaker, you are indicating that my time is almost up. I guess I had better sum it up.
When a Government or Parliament decides that it is going to do something, that it is going to make that its highest priority, it can do it if it has the political will. The previous Government did it with six and five. I did not agree with every way with which we approached six and five, but we were at 12 to 13 per cent inflation. The Government made up its mind that it would make that its highest priority and bring inflation down to 6 per cent and 5 per cent over a three-year period. It happened. Of course it happened. There were other influences that were in there. The Government made it its highest priority. It made six and five the rallying cry in this country. It worked. Inflation came down, and it is still down.
My final word is, let us do the same with employment. Let us have a six and five for employment. Let us put our political will behind it. It will have the support of a lot of Members of this House. Let us bring down the unemployment rate to six and five and let us do it soon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments?
[ Translation]
The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), for questions or comments.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member whether he believes the weekend economic conference-and I know the Hon. Member has had some experience as a member of Cabinet in the past-would have been more successful if the Government had tabled draft solutions or a
white paper or departmental papers which would have served as points of discussion for conference participants and on which an attempt could have been made to reach a consensus. The Hon. Member may recall that this was tried in Australia-in fact, the Prime Minister of Australia was in Ottawa-when the Australian Government tabled documents at a consultation conference, indicating the direction it wanted to give this country from the economic and social point of view, and this did bring results. This time, however, we had no such government paper. Does the Hon. Member believe the results would have been better if the Government had given some direction?


William Warren Allmand: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe it would have helped and would have led to more significant results because it would have focused the convention on the proposal of the Government rather than leaving it as wide open as it did. I know the Government asked the delegates to the convention to discuss the problems of unemployment and economic growth, investment and so on. However, it would have focused it still more and led to more concrete results if it had put its own working paper, whether it was a white paper or whatever you call it, before that conference.
In doing that you run a risk because you are taking a stand. I can recall the previous Government saying that it was putting some proposals before the country for consultation and they are still identified with them to a certain extent. As far as I am concerned, the nature of politics is the taking of tough and difficult stands. I know the Government will be howled at, picketed and voted against from time to time. However, I think that would have led to a more productive conference.
The one thing of which the delegates were aware was the November statement of the Minister of Finance and his promise that there would be more of the same in the next Budget. They had an inkling as to what line the Government would take. It appears as though, despite the fact that there was a division of opinion as to whether the highest priority should be cutting back the deficit or solving the unemployment problem, if the newspaper reports are correct, the Minister of Finance still intends to proceed in the same way as he was intending to proceed when he entered the conference. He said that there may be some minor changes considered in the Budget, but basically his over-all approach will be more or less what he was thinking of previously. We do not know exactly what that is yet because we do not know what the Budget will contain. If it is a follow-up on the November economic statement and if it is to be as harsh as the Prime Minister warned it would be when he said that there would be some tough medicine to swallow, that is not the right way to proceed.
Getting together with labour, management and the voluntary groups is always a good thing. However, it could have been done in a better way and it could have been done in a way that would have led to action faster than a Budget in May.
March 25, 1985


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member was on this side of the House for some 14 or 15 years, part of which time he was a Minister of the Crown. Can he tell me when the Government led by the former Prime Minister was able to get the labour leaders, the bankers, the social leaders and the leaders of the private sector together in one conference to discuss issues over one weekend? Can he remember that kind of consultation taking place? Does he not think that that is a pretty fair way to begin building together as Canadians to make this country grow again?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I referred to the conference that was called on October 18, 1982, by the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) who was then, I believe, President of the Treasury Board. The conference was called Technology for Tomorrow. It dealt with a more concentrated subject, the very serious impact of new technology on employment, and it was similar in nature to the national economic conference. It was a summit conference held on a weekend and included representatives from all sectors. I cannot recall if there were more representatives at that conference than at this one.
As well, there were three major policy forums held in northern Quebec by the Government in the summer of 1983. Those forums went on for two or three days and included spokesmen from business, labour and international backgrounds. The wheel vis-a-vis consultation was not invented on September 4.
As I mentioned in my remarks, following these consultations, the Government took action. In some cases, the public agreed with its action and in some cases it did not agree. I suppose that is the nature of politics and the nature of making hard decisions. We run a risk when doing certain things but at least, if we believe in them and believe that that is the way things should be done, we should proceed.
On occasion, I have been critical of the present Government and have thought that there should be even more consultation. I am still critical of the Government. I mentioned the example of the Government proceeding with cuts to the unemployment insurance regarding severance pay without consulting. I wish that there had been consultation on that matter. However, it does not have to be drawn out forever and a day.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member agrees that we should have consultation. Presumably he agrees that the consultation papers on trade, on assistance concerning universal payments for senior citizens and families, on small business and on capital gains on farm lands are the kinds of consultation papers Governments should undertake. Would he agree that before a Government goes ahead and madly bangs out a budget, it ought to give the public an opportunity to respond to those consultation papers?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I said that I agree with consultation but I think it can be carried on for too long. I cannot refer specifically to the Hon. Member because I did not meet him during the election campaign, but if we refer to the
Supply
rhetoric of some of the members of his Party during the election campaign, we would see that they gave the impression that they had all the answers then and there and as soon as they were elected, things would be done immediately. I quoted the Prime Minister and I have other such quotes that I could read into the record as well. It is that kind of deceit that I am criticizing because obviously they did not have the answers.
The Hon. Member is now saying that government Members should consult. When he spoke earlier, he said that we should not proceed with programs ill-conceived and not well thought-out. Does that mean that some of the promises made during the election campaign were ill-conceived and not well-thought-out? I thought that that was the case and he now seems to be agreeing with me. He is saying that since they were not well-thought-out, we need to consult very broadly.
The point is that the Hon. Member's Party was in opposition for many years. Conservative Members said that they were in consultation with groups far and wide and they should have been ready to proceed when they won the election. They should have been ready to proceed on certain key matters and particularly on employment since they said that that was their highest priority. They were not ready to proceed and they have consulted in a manner beyond that which is reasonable. The Government will be into its 10th or 11th month before we see any action. I think that that is too long. Yes, I agree with consultation but not forever and ever.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I trust that the fact that Hon. Members opposite who proposed this motion took off early for the weekend is not an indication of how seriously they regard these important issues. They raised these issues in the amendment which we take very seriously indeed.
I would like to point out that the motion claiming that the timing proposed for the Budget means that the Government has taken no concrete action to create jobs and establish economic confidence among Canadians including the groups mentioned in the amendment today is among the most absolutely absurd allegations I have heard since I entered this Chamber. It flies in the face of the record of action taken by the Government.
I would like to review some of the highlights of our accomplishments, but first I want to remind Hon. Members across the way that this Government is governing our great country differently. Canadians from across the country are saying amen to that. They realize, as we do, that the well trodden paths from years before lead nowhere. It is our job, as they know and we know, to blaze new trails of governing in this country.
For the first time in Canadian history, Canadians from all walks of life, including the disabled, women's groups, natives' groups, labour, business and community volunteers met together with each other and with the Government at the same time. This Government, unlike the former Government, is not afraid to meet Canadians face to face. It is not afraid to meet Canadians with disparate interests but with a common objec-

March 25, 1985
Supply
tive, the objective of building a better future for this great country.
Consensus has not been reached in everything. We do not expect unanimity. What the Government desires is a more comprehensive understanding among the very groups to which we have referred. The national economic conference led by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was more than a meeting of minds; it was exciting and it was historic. It was a concrete example of our respect for the opinions of Canadians across the country and of our desire to involve Canadians in the policies which affect them. I want to remind, particularly Hon. Members opposite, of something in which this Government believes very strongly-that democracy is based on the conviction that there are extraordinary possibilities in ordinary people.
I would like to review what the Government has accomplished and what Members opposite have chosen to ignore. Within three days of the opening of the new Parliament, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) presented to the House an extensive economic and fiscal statement on November 8. That agenda for economic renewal charted the most comprehensive overhaul of economic policies ever undertaken by a national Government. We have taken on an enormous challenge which will require the full concentration and co-operation of the people of Canada in every sector, people of good will as well as those in Government. By definition, it is a job which will take years, not just months. It is a job which is already well started.
I would like to illustrate the wide range a concrete actions which have already been taken. The November statement announced a total of $4.2 billion in expenditure reductions and revenue recovery measures to be implemented in fiscal year 1985-86. It declared the longer-range goal of reducing the projected level of annual expenditure by 1990 by between $10 billion and $ 15 billion. It was a long-awaited start to reducing the federal deficit. It was a start on putting the Government's fiscal house in order. The statement was a recognition that the mounting federal debt had become a powerful obstacle to growth and to private sector job creation. Whatever consensus may not have been reached, there is consensus on that. The start on deficit reduction was an essential step toward rebuilding confidence.
The Minister took action on social policy, within the limits of the Government's difficult financial position, to improve support for Canadians who need and deserve assistance. The spousal allowance program was extended to all widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64. That measure will benefit some 85,000 low-income Canadians, mostly women, starting in the fall of this year.
The statement also announced improvements in veterans' pensions to ensure more generous and equitable treatment to veterans with disabilities. Those veterans were ignored by the former Government.
On the employment front, the Minister of Finance, in the November statement, committed an additional $1 billion in
the coming fiscal year to help Canadians acquire new skills and find jobs in the private and public sectors. It will provide more effective delivery of employment and training programs. Among those benefiting are the disabled. The best thing we can do for the disabled is to turn them into taxpayers so that they share in the prosperity along with the rest of us.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) announced detailed measures to implement that policy through the Challenge '85 summer employment program and the over-all training and employment strategy.
The statement also announced that the Foreign Investment Review Agency would be replaced by Investment Canada, with a new mandate to promote economic development in Canada. It signalled major changes to the so-called Crown interests, or back-in provisions, of the National Energy Program.
To resolve taxpayer uncertainty, the Minister of Finance took action to clear up a number of outstanding tax issues dating as far back as 1982. He carried out this Party's undertaking that, in a dispute between a taxpayer and Revenue Canada, the taxpayer will be considered innocent until a judge has ruled otherwise, despite the ruthless policies of the former Government in this area.
The November statement announced assistance to the resource industries-to farmers, fishermen, loggers and mine operators. Two modifications were made to the changes in the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax which were proposed by the former Government. A one-year extension was provided for the lower rate of PGRT applying to integrated oil sands projects. That is a benefit to the West which was beleaguered by the former Government's policies. As well, it increased the threshold levels of the small producers' credit under the PGRT to $500,000.
Another step which was taken was the appointment of the task force under the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) to review federal programs and regulations, consolidate, simplify, end duplication and improve service to the public in an area which had atrophied for years and years under the former Government.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) announced a reduction in interest rates on Farm Credit Corporation loans. He introduced legislation to establish a price stabilization program for red meat producers, and to allow the establishment of a supply-management program for tobacco growers.
The railway passenger service received a vote of confidence by the decision of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankow-ski) to reinstate three VIA Rail services in the Maritimes, Ontario and western Canada. Those services were eliminated by the former Government, despite the protests of the people who were affected.
Economic regional development agreements were signed with Quebec, British Columbia, and Ontario. ERDA subagreements were signed on a whole range of sectoral development plans, including pulp and paper, tourism, fisheries, indus-
March 25, 1985

trial development, communications, development planning, and science and technology, right across the country.
A major provincial agreement, resolving years of controversy, which will open up new hope for economic growth in Newfoundland was the agreement signed on offshore resource development with that province by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney). Believe me, we on this side of the House are very proud of our colleague and the Atlantic Accord.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Perhaps, the most fundamental change, and one which is welcomed across the country, is the new approach to consultation and co-operation with Canadians in all walks of life in planning the federal policies which 1 mentioned at the outset of my remarks. The Agenda Paper was a statement of national purpose and the focus for subsequent consultations with all sectors of the Canadian community. It signalled the Government's intention to clear away obstacles to growth and to release the creative energies of Canadians to build a better future. The paper recognized the important economic responsibilities of the provincial Governments. The consultation of the Prime Minister with the Premiers of the ten provinces in Regina set a new standard in effective co-operation in the national interests. Again, that positive approach was repeated in the highly successful national economic conference which ended on Saturday. Those of us who were there, and those who watched it across the country, sensed the excitement of that conference.
In our relationship with our neighbours, two meetings have been held between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States. Those meetings resulted in vital agreements on trade relations, acid, rain, northern defence and Pacific salmon.
The last four months have seen a series of consultation papers focusing on particular areas of our economic life. They have dealt with access to export markets, which is the lifeblood of Canada; export financing, which is required to support that trade; small business development; mining; benefits for children and the elderly; housing; job training; and tax issues in agriculture. Some of the papers focus on practical ways in which business and Government can plan and work together to build a stronger economy and create jobs. Others examine ways of ensuring that our social support system is sensitive to those who most need help. All of the papers recognize not only the vital need for action, but the need for a full opportunity for Canadians to contribute to major policy decisions.
There is more I could say, but the point is that this Government has acted, and it has acted quickly, in a great many concrete ways. The Government has initiated a concentrated national effort to involve Canadians so that they can sense how the Government is trying to build the future in order that they can help it with that. Our actions, and the process of discussion and debate which we have initiated, are contributing directly to the restoration of confidence in the future of the country. The quickness of Members opposite to belittle the
Supply
actions of this Government is one thing-wearisome, but predictable-but the cavalier disregard which is shown in this motion and the amendment for the contributions which Canadians can make to the forthcoming Budget is the real indicator of the cynical and worn-out approach that characterizes the group across the way. They are out of touch, Mr. Speaker, and out of sync with the people of this country. No wonder Canadians overwhelmingly rejected them last September 4, and they do not yet realize that some pretty important changes were made on that day. Not only did the Government change but the way in which the Government works changed. It changed for the better. We now have a truly national Government which wants to work with and listen to Canadians in every part of the public and private sector and in every part of Canada. This takes time and is crucial to the sense of responsibility which Canadians expect from us, the Government they elected. The sooner this new reality sinks in over on the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker, the sooner Hon. Members opposite can begin to contribute in a constructive way in meeting Canada's economic challenges.
Let those Hon. Members also recognize that the economy is showing real signs of encouragement now and for the future, for the unemployed, in particular. Jobs are being created, growth has been higher than expected, the trade balance continues at record levels, inflation is under good control, our competition position is strengthening, and confidence is on the upswing.
We have the momentum going in this country and that was communicated to us by the people who attended our conference this weekend. We intend to build on that momentum in the forthcoming Budget. We are going to keep on building in the months and years after that. There is a big job to be done, Mr. Speaker, and it will be done best with the co-operation and support of all Hon. Members of this House. But it will be done regardless, and done well with the help of people from every part of this country.


Mr. MacLellan:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the Minister's speech. She said that her Government is acting quickly. If it acted any more slowly, it would be going in reverse. The Government was elected on September 4, and what this whole day is all about, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that it has taken so long to bring down a Budget, at least a budget date, or, I should say, at least an approximate budget date, because we don't know exactly when it is going to be brought down. Supposedly it will be in the week of May 20.
The Minister mentions the PGRT and two of the changes in the PGRT. The first is an extension of time of the program, a policy of the former Liberal Government, and the second is an increase over the amount set by the former Liberal Government. Yet it does not go anywhere near what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised in July, three days before the election was called, when he said he was going to do away with it. There is no action on that. That was completely backed away from.
3344

March 25, 1985
Supply
The Minister mentioned the Atlantic Accord. Yet the Minister did not mention the fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) has already said that the grandson of the Petroleum Incentives Program is going to be done way with. There is no fiscal regime put in place, and I guess we will have to wait until the Budget on May 20 to find out what that fiscal regime is going to be. I am very pleased that the Atlantic Accord was signed. I think it is important for Newfoundland. However, I do not think one can say to the people of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia that the grandson of the Petroleum Incentives Program is going to be taken away in March and not let them know what it is going to be replaced with until late in May. I ask the Minister to consider this very important question and bring forward some of this information. A Budget on May 20 is better than no Budget at all, but it still goes way past what most Canadian feel should be a budget date.
There was a mandate for change, Mr. Speaker. Yet that Budget will not be forthcoming until May 20. I think that is a breach of that mandate. I would like the Minister to comment on that.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to comment. I used to live in western Canada and I lived there at a time of hope and opportunity, when the energy industry was an exciting industry which was working on behalf of all Canadians. It was an industry which was changing the face of western Canada. My colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is working night and day to undo the policies which brought that prosperity to an end.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I am always struck by how magnificently this Minister speaks to us. She puts up a grand and spirited defence of the indefensible.
I have three specific questions which I would like to raise with the Minister coming out of this weekend. I was an observer at the national economic conference. First, if there was a sense in Government that eight weeks was needed between the national economic conference and the Budget, why was the Budget originally scheduled for the end of April? The Government itself set up the original schedule with the sense that a month would be sufficient to take into account the points raised this past weekend.
Second, I have to raise specifically with the Minister what to me, and I think to a great many of the people who were there, was the most dramatic event of the weekend. That was the fact that 81 people out of 136 signed a petition to ask for a specific change on a specific damaging and mean-spirited piece of government initiative, that is to include severance pay in calculations of unemployment insurance benefits. That is something, incidentally, which the President of Alcan-who is not exactly as wild a radical as my friend from Nickel Belt- stressed should not only not be considered as part of unemployment insurance calculations but should not even be taxed so that severance pay could be put into small businesses. Why is the Government, to show its good faith, not prepared to
accept that very simple suggestion in responding to that conference and back down on severance pay?
Third, would the Minister not agree that there have been incredibly mixed signals with respect to whether deficit cutting or job expansion is to be stressed, whether free trade is the policy, as the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) seems to suggest, or whether it is the view of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), who seems to talk in terms of increased protectionism, that is the policy? The mixed signals seem to me to be very extensive. Surely the Minister would agree, from her own background in financial circles, that such mixed signals to the financial community are in fact creating uncertainty which must be resolved before the business community in this country can start to undertake the investments which I think all of us would like to see move ahead?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think that the consultations which are leading up to the Budget have been enormously significant and successful. We expected them to be successful. They have been more successful than we expected. Canadians do have something to say to us concerning what we are doing. I want to say something else about the date of the Budget, and that is that unlike the former Government, when we bring down our Budget we intend to bring it in at a time when we can do it right.
In connection with the severance pay issue, my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, was at the conference. I know the solutions that she will come up with will be fair and reasonable after taking consultation into account. However, I might point out that the highlight, the most exciting part of the conference, was not the signing of the petition, it was watching people dialogue together. It was hearing the head of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women say that she had never realized before the complexities the Government faces in trying to bring various interests together. That was the most exciting part of the conference.
In answer to the third question, there are no mixed signals. There was a discussion on the deficit and job creation. There is a greater realization in this country than ever before that the two are related, and we are moving on both fronts as rapidly as we can. But the difficulty in balancing those two was something that people who were at that conference realized more than ever after the weekend.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, in her speech the Minister referred to the signing of the general agreement with the Government of Quebec as one of this Government's achievements. I would like to know why the Government signed this agreement on the basis of 50 per cent paid by the federal Government and 50 per cent by the provincial Government, while all other general agreements signed previously had been
March 25, 1985

agreed to on the basis of 60 per cent being paid by the federal Government and 40 per cent by the Government of Quebec.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we do not conduct the Government on the basis of formulae which are frozen in time. This agreement was worked out between the provincial Government and the federal Government on a basis satisfactory to both, given our fiscal responsibility, which seems to have been understood by the Province of Quebec if not by the Hon. Member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), for a supplementary.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I detect an aggressive note in what the Minister is saying, and perhaps we could go on like that.. . However, the fact remains that this Government has deprived Quebec of considerable sums of money, since all other general agreements were signed on a 60/40 basis. I put the same question to the Quebec Minister, and the impression I got was that it was "take it or leave it". If that is the kind of consultation the Minister has been referring to in her speech, I think it is a peculiar way to conduct consultations.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations and consultations were carried out in good faith. The agreement was signed. It is a valuable agreement for Quebec. The Province of Quebec has said that it is a valuable agreement for Quebec, and 1 do not understand what the argument is if both Parties are satisfied.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If there are no further questions or comments, we shall resume debate.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the Hon. Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) this afternoon when she was telling us about the Government reducing the Farm Credit Corporation's interest rate to 12.75 per cent. What she did not mention was that last week the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) increased the rate to 13.5 per cent. I wonder if the notes the Minister was speaking from this afternoon were prepared before the Minister of Agriculture increased those rates. This increase was totally uncalled for. If you look at the agricultural community today and the tremendous trials and tribulations they are facing in many parts of the country, that the Government should have increased interest rates for farm loans at this time is totally indefensible. I just wondered whether the Minister of Agriculture bothered to tell the Minister of State for Finance that he was increasing those rates. I thought those matters had to be cleared with the Department of Finance and I am surprised she was not aware of that.
1 was also interested in her comment regarding what this Government is doing for science and technology. I wondered whether she had really taken time to read carefully what the
Supply
Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) did on November 8 when he cut some $5 million or $6 million from the toxicology centre at the University of Guelph. That surely had to be one of the most serious blows to that particular part of the scientific field. I know the Hon. Member for Guelph (Mr. Winegard) is in the Chamber this afternoon. I know he would not have agreed with such a decision because he is a former President of the University of Guelph and he knows what a model project that was. That is not because it was a federal project, because it was not just a federal project. The federal Government put some $16 million into the program over a period of four or five years with an equivalent amount coming from the Province of Ontario. There was another $8 million from the private sector. It would have established a world class centre, not only for studying and developing techniques to deal with the difficult problem of toxic elements in our environment, but also for training scientists to deal with these problems. We would have had a world class institution at a very reasonable cost. The institution would have been jointly sponsored by the University of Toronto and the University of Guelph, two world class universities. One has a great deal of expertise in agriculture and veterinary medicine, and the other a great deal of expertise, knowledge and knowhow in the field of human medicine. When the Minister talks about what is being done by this Government, I hope she will think about that decision, which surely had to be one of the worst decisions this Government has taken. We have read about the Love Canal. We read stories about toxins in our environment. We read about the chemicals and pesticides being used in our forest and farms. Everyone is concerned about the question of whether the substances are the cause of cancer or other diseases both in livestock and in people. So I think the Government should not be very proud of its record in science and technology.
I am also amazed that the Minister should have raised the question of extending the spousal allowance to all widows and widowers whether or not they had ever been married to a person receiving the old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement. The hue and cry in my part of the country is, how can the Government be so unfair? How can it not provide this to people who have never been married and to people who have been divorced or separated? The Government talks about fairness. It gets caught up in this rhetoric of fairness, but it does not recognize the unfairness of that provision. I receive petitions and letters asking why the Government does not provide that spousal allowance to all people between 60 and 65 years of age irrespective of whether they are widows or widowers. We commend the Government for extending it that far, but why does it not extend it as well to people who have never been married or have been separated or divorced?
We are really concerned with the delay of the Budget by some eight months. When asked during the election campaign what he would do, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said he would bring in a Budget, immediately to change the economic

March 25, 1985
Supply
course of the country. Some five or six months have passed and we still have no firm date for the Budget.
This document contains 338 campaign promises of the Tory Government. People ask me why the Government is not implementing those promises.


Charles James Mayer: We are.


Claudy Mailly: We are.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I tell the people that 1 do not know. The Government puts out white papers on social security problems. It puts out policies on tourism and all kinds of things. Government Members run around the country asking what they should do about old age pension and other issues. However, they do not get down to the systematic work of implementing all the promises they made.
The Minister spent quite a bit of time talking about implementing the last tax Bill of Mr. Lalonde. I thought that was very interesting. She told the House that they were going to simplify the tax system for small business. These are all good Liberal policies and I was glad she mentioned that. She talked about the benefits provided for RRSP roll-overs, which was also in Mr. Lalonde's Budget. That was very interesting. I was amazed that she mentioned the white paper issued by the Minister of Finance on the farm taxation issues. The Hon. Minister is from the City of Toronto and therefore probably does not hear a lot of the flak that we in rural areas hear about tax issues in agriculture. This is certainly becoming one of the best sellers in rural Canada because, with the name of the Minister of Finance on it, it is clearly the policy of the Government of Canada.
If one reads this document it is clear that the Minsiter of Finance thinks that farmers earn twice as much as the average Canadian, pay a quarter as much taxes, and are worth eight times as much as the average Canadian. This document, published by the Minister of Finance in January of this year, is very much opposed to the 338 promises made by the Government. This paper is opposed to providing low interest longterm financing through agri-bonds. This white paper is clearly opposed to making changes in Section 31 of the Income Tax Act. It is clearly opposed to providing tax free capital gains for farmers. Yet that is what the Government said it was going to do. I am at a loss to know why the Minister of State for Finance would mention this paper which is clearly opposed to all of the things that the agricultural community of the country wants.
Headlines and reports in farm papers have shown that the Minister of Finance is very much opposed to helping farmers at this time. In The Globe and Mail Report on Business of March 7 a headline reads, "Wilson Backtracks of Farm Aid". On page 1 and 2 of The Globe and Mail of February 23, 1985, the headline reads, "Study Shows Farmers Earn Twice as Much as the Average Canadian". The article goes on to say that the average farmer only pays one-quarter as much in taxes. These are statements by the Minister of Finance in his farm review paper. Another headline in the Ottawa Citizen of
Tuesday, February 26, reads, "Western Farmers Enraged by Federal Study on Income". A heading in the Montreal Gazette in January reads, "Farm Paper Ignores Tory Promises". It goes on to outline how the paper talks down why the Government should keep its campaign commitments. Another article in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record of February 28, reads, "Oxford Farm Group Demand Apology From The Finance Chief'. There is no mention in this paper about the Tory campaign promises.
The amazing part of this document issued by the Minister of Finance is not only that it demonstrates his ignorance about the difficulties that agriculture is facing today, but that the Minister of Finance has completely ignored the fact that the farm debt crisis in certain sectors of the industry is the worst it has been since the 1930s. A report issued by the Farm Credit Corporation on October 30, 1984 on the farming situation across the country indicated that 17 per cent of Canadian farmers are experiencing severe financial difficulty and another 7 per cent are in moderate financial distress. This report indicates that 12 per cent of farmers in Atlantic Canada and 20 per cent in British Columbia are facing severe financial distress. All in all, Mr. Speaker, it is pretty serious situation. Some 39,000 farmers are experiencing serious financial distress. That does not mean that they cannot afford to buy a new pick-up truck.
The Farm Credit Corporation used three criteria. The first was that the equity of an individual on his farm was less than 15 per cent. Anyone with less equity than that is in serious financial difficulty. The second criterion was that the borrowings are 110 per cent above the investment. In other words, the person is living on borrowed money. The third criterion is that more than 40 per cent of the farm sales are being used to service intermediate and long-term debt.
When the Minister of Finance reports that the average farmer is so much better off, he is comparing a farmer with an investment of $400,000 or $500,000 with the average home owner and the return on investment. That is pretty silly. Most people would not even think of that kind of comparison. One is a business person with a capital investment averaging about $500,000 of which the equity is about $400,000 and the debt about $100,000 across the entire country. To compare that with the average home owner with a $47,000 home is like comparing two things that are not in the same ballpark. If you compare small business investment and net worth with the farmer, then you have comparable groups, although even there you would have a wider variation. Clearly this is a very unfair paper. It does not do justice nor is it fair to the farmers of Canada. That is why the resolution today regrets that the Government is putting off a Budget until sometime in late May and regrets that the Government does not provide economic confidence for the realization of the hopes of our farmers.
It seems to me that nobody can question a long-term delay of the Budget, and not knowing exactly what the Government
March 25, 1985

is going to do is causing a great deal of concern. Consultation is fine, but the Government has certain financial commitments. It has certain promises that it made in the election campaign. I think Canadians want to know which ones will be honoured. We know pretty well from the economic statement last fall which ones will not be honoured. We know all kinds of things that were not mentioned in the election campaign which the Tories are not going to do. We know what the Government is opposed to. We know the Tories are opposed to the toxicology centre at the University of Guelph. We know the Tories are opposed to the Canadian Wildlife Service and to the control of the monitoring of the environment in the Great Lakes. We have a whole list of issues such as that of renewable energy and all of those issues that we know the Tories are opposed to. What we do not know is what the Government is in favour of. We could find that out if the Government were to bring forth a Budget. We think the Government should be doing that and that it should not be putting off bringing down a Budget for another two months.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, it is very sad to hear the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) say that we do not know what we are for with respect to the agricultural industry. In the seven months that we have been in Government, 57 initiatives have been taken by us that are beneficial to the agricultural community. I dare him to lay on my desk in 24 hours 57 initiatives that were taken by the former Minister of Agriculture in the ten years that the Hon. Gene Whelan held that portfolio. I doubt very much that the Hon. Member could begin to demonstrate the kind of positive action that has been taken in the agricultural community by us. It was the Liberal Government that set forward a grain transportation policy that had the rates going up and up and up, and then a review committee came along to analyse whether the rates should go up. We came into power and we froze the rates. I would like to know why the Member thinks that the Liberals should be applauded for such action.
Once the quotas were met on Irish beef, the Liberals continued to leave the gate open and allowed a flood. Why is the Member standing in his place today pretending such a policy which the Liberals imposed on the agricultural community in Canada was satisfactory? The Hon. Member should know that the present Government has reduced gas tax to farmers, that there have been changes to the Western Grain Stabilization Act, that there has been a pay-out and another pay-out is coming this spring, that interest rates with the FCC have been decreased by approximately 2 per cent, that the tobacco growers have had an opportunity for a new system for marketing which they asked for, and that there is a Bill of Rights for taxpayers that has important implications for farmers. The list goes on until we reach No. 57.
I challenge and I dare the Hon. Member to give me a list of 57 initiatives by the Liberals over the last 10 years.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I did not have a chance to finish my speech. This extra 10 minutes will be just about enough.
Supply
The Hon. Member has really set out a beautiful agenda of things that the Tories have not done and do not appear to be doing. We have heard a great deal about all of the things they are going to do like freezing transportation rates. In the election campaign, the Tories said they would freeze the rates at the level at which they were before they were increased in early August. The Tories did not do that.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Maurice Brydon Foster: He just wants to debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: May I be the judge of that? The Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) on a point of order.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) does not wish to mislead the House. He ought not to imply that I said the 57 initiatives were those we wished to undertake. Those are the ones we have already taken.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to advise the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) that that is debate.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, it was obvious the Hon. Member for Crowfoot, who is a long-time Member here, is very tender about the fact that the Tories did not freeze transportation rates at the level at which they were before the increase in early August. It was very very clear in the election campaign that the Tories were going to freeze the rates at the level before the increase. The Tories did not do that. In fact, the Tories froze the rates at the new high.
It is interesting that the Hon. Member should bring up the whole question of freight rate increases. It certainly appears now, because of the way the western transportation Act was established, that there would be an increase this coming August. They will be out on the hustings soon hammering away at how they held the rates down, which is just a bunch of malarkey. The rates will not increase because of the volumes and the rate of inflation.
We have not heard the Tories say very much about the farm-debt crisis. They have not done anything about it. The Minister of Agriculture in his more unguarded moments has said that the Tories are not going to do anything about it. That is another reason we would like to see a Budget to confirm to the 39,000 farmers looking for some relief and some assistance that the Government will not do anything to provide relief.
I was interested to note that the Hon. Member raised the Irish beef question. After Ireland dumped some 51 million pounds during the latter half of 1984, the Government finally, after four months in office, invoked the meat import law and restricted-I hear the Hon. Member across the way. Let me say to him it is because we never had the volumes over the minimum rate. If he knew what was going on with the whole Irish beef question, he would not be raising it. Even though the Government invoked a quota of 5.9 million pounds on Ireland, that quota had already been more than filled. The quota is

March 25, 1985
Supply
over by one million pounds. Does that sound like a Government that has any guts, a Government that will protect the beef producers here, Mr. Speaker? It sure does not, because the Tories are in Brussels today negotiating to increase the amount. The EEC is demanding an increase from 6 million pounds to 33 million pounds. There is every likelihood that the Tories will knuckle under. The Hon. Member asks why. Because the Tories have already knuckled under in response to American pressure. The Government has increased the quota to the Americans from 21 million pounds to some 65 million pounds. It does not sound to me as if the Government were very committed to livestock and beef producers of the country or to protecting their interests. If it had any courage, it would go to GATT to argue and fight for Canadian agricultural producers rather than knuckle under and increase quotas, as it will probably do within the next week or so.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make a few remarks at the end of this debate. In listening to the debate today, it seemed to me that far too much attention was focused on the conference which took place last weekend in Ottawa. In the long run I suspect that that conference will not have that much impact upon the unemployed logger, miner, factory worker or the young person coming out of college and looking for a job in a market where there are no jobs.
The motion before us is an important one. We are faced with a situation where there are two conflicting tendencies which are on a collision course. On the one hand, new technologies mean that fewer people are needed to perform the work required, so people become redundant. For example, in British Columbia the forest industry can have record production with 20 per cent fewer workers. On the other hand, we see a great many cut-backs in the kinds of services available to people. This means that jobs become more important than ever. They are the only ticket for people who want to get into the banquet which society provides. If people do not have jobs, they are locked out.
We see this in the increased use of user fees and increased premiums for medicare. Many people in Canada are simply not making adequate use of medical facilities because they cannot afford the premiums or user fees. Jobs become more important than ever in this context.
1 should like to make a few comments about the situation facing our aboriginal people. We have often heard the statistic that up to 90 per cent of people in some Indian communities are unemployed. This statistic is becoming more relevant all the time. A few years ago many of these communities had local economies and the people were able to sustain themselves from the land. These economies are being destroyed by massive development. Just a few weeks ago I visited the Lubicon people in northern Alberta. Until five years ago only 10 per cent of those people were on welfare. Today, 90 per cent of them are on welfare because the oil industry criss-crossed their traditional hunting and trapping grounds, destroying their
traditional economy. Now these people find they have no recourse but to go on welfare, which is unable to sustain them as a people. It might put a little bread on their table, but it does not enable them to live as a community. For this reason the World Council of Churches referred to the Lubicon and said that the practices there were in fact genocidal.
It is of the utmost importance that the federal Government take the lead in recognizing the need for the entrenchment of the right of aboriginal people to self-government and to provide adequate resources so that they can govern themselves and have control over their own economy and society.
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) referred to the NDP action task force on jobs. I want to focus on one comment which he made. He said there was a greater need for putting resources at the local level so that people had local control. This is what we have been saying with regard to Indian people, but it is also true in hundreds of communities across Canada. It makes good economic sense. If local people have control of the resources, they will make better use of them.
Finally, if the Government has any plans to alleviate the situation for unemployed Canadians, why does it not bring them in now? Why does it have to wait until the end of May? The Government has been in power since September 4. Let it take action now and do what it can to provide some real help for women, young people, natives, fishermen, loggers, and other people of Canada who desperately need that help.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 5.45 o'clock p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 62(10), to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of Supplementary Estimates (C) and Interim Supply, and of all stages of the Bills based thereon.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 7c, DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board) moved:: That Vote 7c, in the amount of $1 under the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion-Budgetary, in the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.
March 25, 1985


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. And more than five Members having risen:
Supply


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried
The next question is on item No. 2.


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE lc, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
Robert René de Cotret: That Vote lc, in the amount of $1 under the Department of Transport- Departmental administration-operating expenditures, in the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) on a point of order.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I believe, if you were to seek the consent of the House, that the vote which was recorded on the previous motion could be recorded as well on this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I sense a unanimous disposition in the House to adopt that course of action?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES
[Stage Direction]
(C)
Robert René de Cotret: That the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985, laid upon the Table, Tuesday, March 5, 1985, except the votes disposed of earlier this day. be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion agreed to.
Mr. de Cotret thereupon moved that Bill C-34, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the
Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1985, be read the first time and printed.


Mr. Speaker:: is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. de Cotret thereupon moved that Bill C-34, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1985, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) on a point of order.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) can assure the House that this Bill is in its usual form.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to assure the House that the Bill is in its usual form.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the Chair.
Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the Bill carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Bill reported.


Robert René de Cotret: that the Bill be concurred in.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert René de Cotret: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.
March 25, 1985


INTERIM SUPPLY
Robert René de Cotret: That a sum not exceeding $10,502,377,163.36 being composed of:
(1)	three-twelfths ($7,285,634,730.00) of the total amounts of the items set forth in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986, which were laid upon the Table on Tuesday, February 26, 1985; except those items detailed below:
(2)	eleven-twelfths of the total amount of Energy, Mines and Resources Item 20, Public Works Items 40 and 45, Transport Item 25 and Treasury Board Item 10 (Schedule A) of the said Estimates $55,440,000.00;
(3)	nine-twelfths of the total amounts of Solicitor General Item 5, and Treasury Board Item 5 (Schedule B) in said Estimates $377,933,250.00;
(4)	eight-twelfths of the total amount of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Item 50 (Schedule C) of the said Estimates $10,906,666.67;
(5)	seven-twelfths of the total amounts of Employment and Immigration Item 15 (Schedule D) of the said Estimates, $387,307,083.33;
(6)	six-twelfths of the total amounts of Transport Items 35, L45 and L50 (Schedule E) of the said Estimates, $14,590,000.00;
(7)	five-twelfths of the total amounts of Communications Items 5 and 50, Consumer and Corporate Affairs Item 15, Indian Affairs and Northern Development Item 15, National Health and Welfare Item 55 and Veterans Affairs Item 15 (Schedule F) of the said Estimates $518,772,500.01; and
(8)	four-twelfths of the total amounts of Communications Item 35, Consumer and Corporate Affairs Item 10, Employment and Immigration Items I, 5, 10 and 25, Energy, Mines and Resources Items I and 45, External Affairs Item 45, Finance Item 25, Indian Affairs and Northern Development Items 30, 35 and 40, National Health and Welfare Item 10, Public Works Items 10 and 50, Secretary of State Items 25 and 45, Supply and Services Item 15, Transport Items 55 and 85, and Veterans Affairs Items 20, 25 and 30 (Schedule G) of the said Estimates, $1,851,792,933.35;
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert René de Cotret: that Bill C-35, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1986, be read the first time and printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. de Cotret thereupon moved that Bill C-35, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1986, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the Chair.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 2 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 3 carry?
Supply


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 4 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 5 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Schedule A carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Schedule B carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Schedule C carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Schedule D carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Schedule E carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Schedule F carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Schedule G carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the preamble carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the title carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.

March 25, 1985
Supply


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the Bill carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Bill agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall I rise and report the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported.


Robert René de Cotret: that the Bill be concurred in.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert René de Cotret: that the Bill read the third time and do pass.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 6.20 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.20 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 26, 1985