1985-02-12

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap) moved:: That this House commends the Government of Manitoba for its positive policies of job creation which have produced the lowest unemployment level in Canada, and calls upon the Government to adopt a similar course of economic expansion rather than the discredited policies of tax increases and spending cuts which it has pursued to date and which are largely responsible for the latest unemployment statistics, which show an alarming increase of 167,000 unemployed between December, 1984 and January, 1985.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to lead off for the New Democratic Party on its Opposition Day motion. In a sense, the motion identifies the number one issue which faces the country-unemployment.
If we look around at a variety of models, there are some areas of the world and, indeed, some areas of Canada that provide us with some guidance as to what the present federal Government ought to be using as it develops its plans for the Budget and the ways and means it will use to get the economy of Canada back on track.
As a youngster I was a fan of Robert Louis Stevenson. He wrote a book entitled The Wreckers. The fundamental theme in that book was that a group of rather unscrupulous people on a South Pacific island set up large bonfires in the evenings on certain parts of the beach. Those bonfires were to act as beacons to ships which were sailing past and to indicate to them that those were safe areas in which to anchor. However, there were hidden shoals and when the large ships sailed in they were shipwrecked. Then the unscrupulous island people would plunder the contents of the ships, and as a result people would lose their lives.
I was reminded of that story when thinking about the nature of this debate. The federal Government is saying: "Follow us". The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) is saying: "Have faith in us. Just give us time, because we are providing guidance".
Human wreckage has resulted from that policy and that kind of direction. I do not have to go any further than my own constituency. Kamloops has an official unemployment rate of 20.3 per cent. In real terms, that means there are over 10,000
people in that region who are officially collecting unemployment insurance, over 5,500 people on welfare, and hundreds of others who do not qualify for unemployment insurance or welfare support. There are small-business people who do not qualify and fall through the social security net. There are 2,500 young people under the age of 25 who are jobless in that community. The Minister tells them not to worry because Canada Works will provide jobs. There are more than 15,000 who are unemployed and Canada Works may provide 200 jobs in the next few months. The Minister of Employment and Immigration tells us to have faith in the Government and to be patient because the private sector in Kamloops will provide thousands of jobs in the next little while.
Last weekend I was in my constituency and met with three business groups. The groups, which speak for small and medium-sized businesses, said that they were literally clinging to survival and that they were not thinking about expansion. They told me that the best scenario which could happen was that they would not go bankrupt. I also met with representatives of the ministerial association, pastors from a number of churches in the greater Kamloops area. They said that if things did not change dramatically over the next few months there would be violence, civil disobedience and bloodshed in the streets. That was told to me by pastors who are the heads of their congregations. These are people who have not only a compassion but an understanding of the realities on the main streets of Kamloops.
[DOT] (mo)
I see Hon. Members opposite laughing at that proposal. The heads of churches say that there will in fact be blood running and violence in these communities because of the economic policies being pursued by Governments in this country. Those are not my views necessarily. I am simply reflecting the views of the religious leaders in my community.
I received a letter this morning from a young man who has worked for the last 12 years but who lost his job a few months ago. He ran out of his unemployment insurance benefits. A few weeks ago he went down to the welfare office to apply for a subsidy and was told that they could not give him one at the time because his wife was working and earning $525 a month. This couple's rent for a very modest apartment is $375. They have just received a bill from B.C. Hydro for a two-month period in the amount of $148. That leaves them $2, Mr. Speaker, to live on for the month. That $2 will have to pay for their food and all the other incidentals which life demands.
This young husband is a proud man and he sees today no hope. He is told by Government services that he does not qualify for a subsidy but if he comes back in two or three

February 12, 1985
Supply
months it might be able to find a $60 a month supplement for him. Some of us in this House should try living on $2 a month. What this means, of course, is that this proud individual will now have to go downtown and get in line at the food bank. If he is lucky he will get a hamper of food after standing in line for an hour or so because inevitably at the end of the day the food supply runs out and has to be replenished. This is a reality now in one of the richest parts of Canada traditionally. This is a reality in a province which is identified as a "have" province. It is recognized as a very prosperous province generally, but the Province of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, is on its knees. It is an economic basket case.
For a moment, Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn our attention away from that part of Canada. We found out a few days ago that unemployment has soared, increasing more in one month than it has in any single month over the last five years. The increase in the number of people who are unemployed in Canada over the last month is the equivalent of the population of cities like Sudbury, Saskatoon, Chicoutimi, Oshawa, St. John's. In other words, the size of the entire population of a city was added to the unemployment rolls in one single month. But the Government still says "Be patient, folks; relax. We are consulting with various groups and so on. We will be bringing in a Budget some time in April or May". The Budget will take effect in terms of its policy in the fall or next winter some time, but the Government says "Just relax".
I suspect that the people of Canada are not prepared to relax much longer. There are one and a half million people in this country who are unemployed and that number is growing. That means one and a half million people are not playing their rightful role in Canadian society of building the Canadian economy. There are fewer houses under construction, fewer roads being built, fewer trees being planted and fewer consumer goods being produced, all because one and a half million people are idle.
On top of that there is the cost of nearly $ 1 billion a month for unemployment insurance benefits from the federal Government, plus hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in welfare payments out of the federal Government's treasury in terms of transfer payments. We cannot afford these high levels of unemployment in the country, Mr. Speaker, because of what it does to the productive capacity in Canada and what it costs Canadians.
What has been the argument and the proposals of our Governments, Mr. Speaker? I believe we could distil the alternatives down to two. There is one school of thought which thinks the solution to unemployment is to unshackle the market-place; free enterprise, some would say. To these people, government bureaucracies are the root of all evil. If we reduce government, the private sector will enthusiastically come to life, spring into action and develop, expand and create those jobs, is the explanation we hear from the Conservatives.
John Kenneth Galbraith summed it up I think quite nicely when he said that these are the folks who believe that the rich
are not working because they have too little money and the poor are not working because they have too much money.
These people want to take us back to an earlier time in the past when they believed government was less intrusive in the lives of individuals. How are they prepared to do that? They want to reduce the size of government. Their very first priority is to reduce expenditures on social programs and slash the deficit no matter what the consequences. This is what we have seen in the Province of British Columbia. This is the reality of the world of Bill Bennett.
In his statement on November 8 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) outlined the Government's priorities. At the top of the list was not job creation or economic development; at the top of the list was deficit reduction. The Minister's statements on November 8 sounded strangely similar to those statements of the Premier of British Columbia in his last two budgets.
Let me give a couple of examples. On November 8 the Minister of Finance said that controlling the deficit must be our priority for this year and each year of the Government's mandate. The B.C. budget of 1973 said that the Government's decision is clear-"We shall restrain expenditure and reduce the size of government". Again on November 8 the federal Minister of Finance said he believes that deficit reduction is the key to rebuilding confidence. The B.C. budget of 1983 said that the budget provides what is needed to contain the size and burden of government so the private sector, our major resource companies and all businesses large and small, will have the climate needed to ensure that our fragile recovery gains momentum.
Let us look at what happened in British Columbia. In 1983 they looked into the future and made some projections, as did the federal Minister of Finance. In B.C. they said that real provincial growth will occur in the 6 per cent range. Capital investment will increase by 15 per cent in 1984 and employment growth will increase nearly 4 per cent. That is what they thought was going to happen. That is what they wished was going to happen. It is a Peter Pan approach to economics; if you really believe it is going to happen, it will happen.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it did not happen. Real provincial growth was less than 1 per cent. In other words, it decreased. There was no economic growth in British Columbia. Capital investment fell by 5 per cent rather than increasing by 15 per cent. Employment growth fell. In other words, unemployment is increasing at a staggering rate month after month after month. What they projected simply did not occur.
While it is not surprising that opposition Members, particularly New Democrats from British Columbia, would have a rather jaundiced view of what has happened, we are not the only ones. I can quote the president of the Chartered Accountants' Association of British Columbia. On October 19, 1984 he said that B.C. is heading for hell in a hand-basket this winter. He said many of his members are telling their clients to flee British Columbia. In other words, if you are looking for opportunity, for growth and development, for investment
February 12, 1985

opportunities, do not stay in British Columbia, go east to Manitoba.
That is what Michael Walker, the chief economist for the Fraser Institute, had to say to young people. They asked him what he would suggest they do in British Columbia and he said the best news he had for young people in British Columbia is not the old "Go west, young man"; it is "Go east, young man". He meant go east to Manitoba.


An Hon. Member:: How do you know that?


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is where the jobs are. That is where the in-migration is taking place. There is none to British Columbia, believe me.
The Royal Bank of Canada came out with a report in Manitoba, 1984, which said that B.C.'s problems include severe government restraint measures, persistent labour disputes, depressed consumer and business confidence. The president of the Business Council of British Columbia said the economy has not recovered, it has not turned around, and that is what we were all led to believe.
One can go on and on, Mr. Speaker, and list spokesperson after spokesperson from economic and financial agencies, respected analysts in their field. When they are honest they all say that the future of British Columbia under the restraint policy and conservative ideology of the Social Credit Government is very depressing. Most of the money now raised on the Vancouver Stock Exchange is for investment outside of British Columbia. That says something about how the investors of British Columbia feel about the future of their province.
It would be useful to turn to another alternative now. I indicated that one alternative was this almost religious zeal which sees the unfettered market-place as the opportunity for our economic future. Another alternative is that which we see in the Province of Manitoba. Jobs are the first priority of the Manitoba Government. Its first priority is to get the people of Manitoba working in meaningful, long-term jobs. The Government of Manitoba assumes that unemployment erodes economic growth and investor and consumer confidence. It assumes that if people have jobs they can sustain the necessary economic activity and provide the consumer demand which is the real trigger to business confidence and investment.
The Conservatives feel it is necessary to bribe people to behave in certain economic ways. They want to lure and entice business to expand. They want to provide tax incentives. Business does not need to be bribed or to have incentives provided for it. If there is a market-place and a consuming public, businesses will expand. They will not expand if there is no one to purchase their goods and services. Any government which believes it works the other way around is sorely mistaken.
The Minister of Finance in the Province of Manitoba, Mr. Schroeder, has said: "It is vitally important that the provincial Government stimulus takes place now to protect our basic
Supply
strengths and enhance our ability to promote the advancement of economic recovery when it comes". In December of 1982 he said: "Efforts to reduce deficits through large-scale tax increases or expenditure cuts will only aggravate current economic problems". Manitoba has taken some very concrete action which has reduced the level of unemployment in that province. The Province of Manitoba now has the lowest unemployment level in Canada. Manitoba is a have-not province. It is not usually identified as a prosperous province. The Government of Manitoba meant it when it said that job creation and development was its number one priority.
The Government of Manitoba took action on a variety of fronts. In 1983 it put together a jobs fund. It allocated $200 million for the creation of jobs. In 1983 alone it created 21,000 jobs. In the first half of 1984 it created 10,000 jobs. If the national Government provided an equal ratio of job creation stimulus it would be spending $5 billion on getting people back to work. However, the federal Government would rather spend $12 billion on UIC payments or hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars on welfare. It would much rather do as it did last month and spend $300 million buying up Canadian dollars. Week after week the Government spends hundreds of millions of dollars to buy its own dollars in order artificially to prop up the value of the Canadian dollar because Mr. Bouey has a passionate and committed position to maintain the dollar at 75 cents U.S. Therefore we will spend $300 million this month and perhaps another $200 million next month. Do I hear a single Conservative Member state in the House that that notion is wrong and should not be the way to spend taxpayers' money in this country? There is never a word from them.
Let me give some examples of programs that are funded under this jobs fund in the Province of Manitoba. There is the development of a technology resource centre in which major computer companies participated.
I see that my time is almost up.


Mr. Lewis:: Good.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Conservatives say "good" because it must be very hard on them when I point out that Manitoba is the one province in Canada where business investment is the highest per capita and where there is a migration of people into that province because that is where the opportunities exist in western Canada. Unemployment is the lowest in that province which just happens to have a New Democratic Party Government. Those are the facts.
In conclusion, if the Government is really committed to its election campaign that jobs was its number one priority, it can look at models on which to base its programs. It can look at the conservative Government in the Province of British Columbia which is ruining that economy, or at the Province of Manitoba that has developed one of the stronger economies in the country. Jobs are in fact being created on a daily basis. People are migrating there and government investment, con-
2242

February 12, 1985
Supply
sumer confidence and investor confidence are rising. Those are the two alternatives.
We in the New Democratic Party hope and pray that as the new Government devises its plans and discusses alternatives at the First Ministers' conference later this week, it will use Manitoba as a model for getting the country's economy back on track and allowing unemployed Canadians once again to participate in a meaningful way in Canadian society and the economy.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the Hon. Member's speech. I have also read the motion. Given the Hon. Member's interest in the House and the fact that he has been here since 1980, does he recall there ever being an Opposition motion presented which was so subservient to the interests of a political party in a province?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I think I understand the question. Let me preface my remarks by saying that not only have I been here for five years, but I have been an observer of the House of Commons for many more years. I have also been a concerned Canadian for 43 years. I believe we are at the most critical point in the future of our country. I do not believe there has been a Budget presented in the last three or four decades that has been more important than the upcoming Budget.
As a Member of Parliament from British Columbia, 1 see a particular political ideology at work in the economy. We can quote many people besides opposition politicians who describe that approach as being disastrous, one that simply leads to more unemployment and less confidence. It is a plan that results in a loss of hope for the future by older and younger Canadians in that province.
Last night I met with five businessmen from Vancouver. They are leaders in that economy and I asked them about their opinion of the economy for the next six months. They said that they saw absolutely no hope for the next six months and only wishful thinking after that.
That is why we felt it is important at this point, when we know that the Government is serious about finding a proper solution to get the economy of Canada back on track, to look to other models. The Government could look to Australia or Great Britain, but we felt that rather than looking at the international community it could look to Canada where there are two models to draw upon for information. That is why we selected the one real success story in Canada today as a model. The model just happens to be headed by a New Democratic Party Government. I suspect if it were headed by some other government, we would still identify Manitoba as an appropriate province.
Let us look at the successes, Mr. Speaker. Why do we look at failures for a model? This tells us a little bit about the Conservatives. They look around and say: "Listen, the economy of Great Britain is falling on its face, the economy of British Columbia is falling on its face; let us use these two
areas as our models". We say let us use other countries as our models. Let us use as a model what is going on in Australia, where the unemployment rate is 8 per cent today. Perhaps we should look at Sweden or Norway where the unemployment rate is 3 per cent today. Let us look at West Germany where interest rates today are 5.5 per cent.
Many people have been caught up with the Tory rhetoric that this is it, that this is the reality, that there is no alternative. Our responsibility as a concerned and effective Opposition is to say there are other alternatives. The Province of Manitoba is one of those other alternatives.


Mr. Wenman:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Hon. Member's concern about the creation of jobs and the availability of jobs that comes through Canada's capacity to compete in the great markets of the Department of Defence of the United States or in other markets covering anything from toothpicks to mattresses to computers to military equipment, and if it offsets our gain, would the Hon. Member support the creation of additional jobs in his riding or in the Province of British Columbia where Canadian businessmen can compete? Does the Hon. Member encourage and support that kind of activity?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I speak for my Party when I say that the kind of jobs and the kind of economic enterprise that we would like to see support for today is not necessarily the kind of enterprise that is associated with the build-up of the American arms industry.
The mayors of Canada came together and said: "You, the Government of Canada, we have billions and billions of needed urban infrastructure that must be built". It is not a question of should be built; it has to be built. I am talking about sewage treatment, water treatment facilities, senior citizens' housing, other kinds of social housing, roads, bridges. In other words, things that will be with us for decades and perhaps generations. How long does a tank last? How long does a bullet last? How long does any military technology last? It might be valid for a few weeks, a few months, at best a few years.
We are concerned that it is time now to develop the necessary supports to develop the processing, the secondary industry, the tertiary industry and the quaternary industry of this country. I do not see the present Government doing that. I see the present Government getting off on a tangent and, if you like, maintaining the status quo, saying to the large corporations: "We are going to rely on you to expand the economy". I hear a brilliant statement coming from a Conservative opposite. That is the kind of positive criticism that we can expect.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: What would you do with Bristol-Myers in Winnipeg?


Nelson Andrew Riis: In The Financial Post for today it is reported that the big oil companies' profits are up 50 per cent over last year. We read that corporate profits have returned to the levels they were back in 1980.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Why don't you answer the question? Would you cancel 30,000 defence jobs in Canada?
February 12, 1985


Nelson Andrew Riis: I am suggesting that if we are going to develop the economy of Canada, we know what can be done within Canada. We know we have the resources within Canada to accomplish that; we have the will of the people, the expertise and the capital.
We in the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker, have faith in the people of Canada. We do not have to look outside for alternatives. We do not have to look outside for our investment money. We do not have to look outside for our expertise. We have faith in the people of Canada and I wish the Conservative Government would have faith in the people of Canada and their abilities as well.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: The Hon. Member mentioned particularly a lot of interest in Manitoba. Is the Hon. Member recommending to the Government of Mr. Pawley that the contracts with Bristol-Myers and other major employers in that area should be cancelled, or should they be expanded when there is opportunity to expand? Will the Hon. Member support that expansion and those additional jobs, or does the Hon. Member want to do away with the 30,000 jobs in Canada involved with these industries? Does the Hon. Member support that industry or does he not?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the point the Hon. Member is making. I have two responses for him. One, I am not going to suggest what any provincial Government should or should not do. Provincial Governments are quite capable of deciding on their own. I am suggesting some alternatives for our national Government.
I think it is appropriate, if we want to get a return on our investment of federal dollars, that we develop our educational system and our manufacturing industries. That is where the greatest return is. Take a look at our resource industries. Why do we not start processing some of those resources? In other words, we should do something new. We should initiate something new in terms of economic development. That is what the Government is elected to do. It was elected on a change of policy. It was not elected to perpetuate the same policy to which the Liberals introduced us for many, many years.


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


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is my understanding that in a debate such as this where the motion is an NDP motion the Government should respond. Unfortunately, I see no Minister here.


Mrs. McDougall:: There are two.


William Warren Allmand: My understanding is that the Government responds to the motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not think this is a point of order. Does someone wish to speak on debate?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I understood that the second speaker was to be from the Liberal bench.
Supply


William Warren Allmand: It is up to you to respond. If you have no response, fine.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This is not a point of order. I need someone to speak on debate.


William Warren Allmand: No one is responding.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does anyone wish to speak on debate?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, since the Party that is responsible for our current crisis chooses not to speak on the issue, I will be happy to speak on it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker I take part in this debate with considerable pride. I have roots in Manitoba through a great uncle who homesteaded there during a period when times were really tough in western Canada and it took a great sense of challenge and adventure to live there. I am very proud of the people in my family who are in Carman, Manitoba, and who have been proud supporters of my political Party and our political concepts.
I am pleased to take part in this debate because my hon. friend started off with a reference to two things that are of interest to me. One was to ships and harbours and I note that Manitoba is one of our provinces fronting on the ocean. I would also like to quote for my hon. friend his favourite author, Robert Louis Stevenson:
You cannot run away from a weakness; you must some time fight it out or perish; and if that be so, why not now ... ?
Mankind was never so happily inspired as when it made a cathedral.
We are attempting to make this country once again a cathedral.
I am also pleased to take part in this debate because it raises some important economic and fiscal issues that we on this side of the House have been attempting to debate in an intelligent way. It is certainly nice to see members of the Opposition accepting our invitation to join in the national debate on the directions for change set up by this Government. It provides an opportunity to discuss issues in what I hope will be a rational and constructive way. Toward that end I will try and overlook the possibility that the motion is really more concerned with politics than it is with economics, or even with Robert Louis Stevenson.
I am pleased to commend any provincial government that puts forward positive policies for economic growth and job creation. To the extent that the Manitoba Government has done that, I say "well done" and I hope that Government keeps it up.
Since the motion cites Manitoba as a model, I want to take a moment to look at the facts of the case. First, the employment situation. Manitoba's unemployment rate at 8.5 per cent in January was equal to that of Saskatchewan as the lowest among the provinces, significantly below the national average of 11.2 per cent. Perhaps it was just an oversight that the

February 12, 1985
Supply
drafters of the motion forgot to include Saskatchewan in the commendation. In any case I hope the omission has nothing to do with the fact that there is, after all, a Progressive Conservative Government in the Province of Saskatchewan.
UO)
Let us now look at the percentage increase in employment in Manitoba since the end of the recession. At 6.3 per cent, the increase is slightly above the national average of 6.1 per cent but below the range of 8 per cent or higher in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Ontario. Manitoba's loss of jobs during the recession at 4.3 per cent was below the national average of 5.2 per cent. In other words, its employment situation has been more stable but has shown less growth.
Since September when the Government took office, 64,000 jobs have been created in Canada and the unemployment rate has dropped. The rate of job creation in the past four months has been 1,200 per cent faster than in the same period a year earlier. I might also note, according to some recent information, that Manitoba's economic growth rate for this year is forecast at about the national average.
It is clear that attempts to draw sweeping conclusions about the success or otherwise of any given set of economic policies over relatively short periods are unconvincing, to put it mildly. They could be dismissed as harmless exercises if they did not illustrate, as the motion before the House clearly does, the continuing tendency to look for simplistic alternatives to the hard economic and fiscal challenges which are facing the nation. The Throne Speech, the economic statement, the First Ministers' conference and the national summit are all part of the renewal of the Canadian economy. These events and the consultation process are the essence of the consensus building necessary for a bright and prosperous future. We have made the renewal of the Canadian economy the top priority, with economic growth, economic opportunities and jobs our main concern.
It is simplistic, not to mention mischievous, to attribute the employment creation of provinces to provincial government policies while at the same time blaming the federal Government generally for unemployment across the country. That same federal Government's tax revenues in Manitoba have been considerably exceeded by federal spending in the province, spending in the form of federal employee wages, family allowances, unemployment insurance, old age pensions and federal-provincial transfers such as equalization, hospital insurance, medicare, post-secondary education and social assistance under the Canada Assistance Plan.
The federal Government has demonstrated its support for the well-being of Canadians. We remain fundamentally committed to that well-being, no matter where those Canadians may live in this great land. That is why the Government has come forward with the kinds of policies needed to renew the capacity of the economy of all Canada to grow and create lasting new jobs. I want to emphasize for the benefit of Hon. Members across the way the word "lasting", because it is
crucial to the kind of economic process which the Government wants to build.
If I may be allowed one last look at the Manitoba situation-and this was the idea of Hon. Members across the way-we could indeed find evidence of significant public spending for job-creation purposes. About $200 million annually has been funnelled through the Manitoba jobs fund to small and medium-sized businesses in 1983-84, although I note that some economists have argued that the program does not represent new initiatives but a repackaging of existing programs. In any case, the new program has generated jobs lasting about 13 weeks on average.
As much as programs of this nature are needed, the hard fact remains that the real need is long-term jobs. Strong concern has been expressed in Manitoba over the lack of emphasis on private sector investment which leads to those opportunities. Also, the Manitoba budget last year indicated such a shift in its Government's approach to seeking longer term job opportunities.
We welcome the efforts of Governments in every province to deal with both short and long-term economic needs. We particularly welcome evidence and other Governments increasingly recognize the need for getting at the causes of economic weakness rather than merely suppressing the symptoms with more and more borrowed money. The fiscal situation of the Government of Canada, record high deficits and rapidly rising accumulated debt brought to us courtesy of the Liberal Party, is a legacy of just that kind of philosophy. This is why I fail to understand why the Liberal Party has chosen not to speak on this topic. It was a Government so fixated on treating the economic symptoms that its policies became part of the disease; it spent money as if there were no tomorrow. It was right but only in terms of its own political prospects. Unfortunately it bequeathed a lot of very expensive tomorrows for all Canadians.
We are trying to eliminate the cause of our economic weakness through an attack on the growing mountain of national debt. This is part of our comprehensive program to build a healthy and expanding economy which will create jobs and economic opportunity. Other speakers will have more time to address the fiscal situation which faces the Government. I will only say that we are at a point where the use of the kind of conventional fiscal stimulus suggested by the motion before the House would not be expansionary for the economy in any but the most fleeting and ephemeral senses. The damage to confidence would take its toll on private sector investment, and the Government's future fiscal capacity to assist in economic growth would be further eroded. In short, we cannot go on this way.
I remind Hon. Members opposite of an important maxim: we cannot cross a river in two strides. It takes time and many steps to brook a river to get us where we want to go. We have already started to take strides in the right direction. Putting the Government's fiscal house in order is therefore a crucial element in the agenda for economic renewal which the Government has placed before the country and before the
February 12, 1985

House-first, for debate here and consultation with the country, and then for action.
Contrary to the motion before the House, the Government has begun the task of restraining government expenditures in a manner entirely compatible with the continued growth of the economy and the creation of new jobs. The notion of the props being pulled out from under the economy by government restraint is totally ludicrous. In fact, even after the effect of expenditure reductions and other measures brought forward in November, the projected deficit in the next fiscal year will represent an additional stimulus of some $7 billion over and above what the previous Government had projected. If we take the motion at its face value, it is telling us that the prospect of this extra $7 billion and all the higher than expected deficits of recent years are doing little or nothing to help the economy produce the real jobs which Canadians need. That is precisely the problem which the Government is addressing by facing the deficit and the debt head on. We want to solve the problem before it becomes a crisis.
In its agenda for action the Government has set out to redefine its role so that it can provide an effective framework for the growth and job creation we need. That means removing the obstacles to change and innovation to enable the private sector to keep up with competition from around the world. We intend to foster the necessary increases in investment in a climate favourable to the birth and growth of new enterprise. We will achieve those goals in a manner which is fair and open and with the basic sense of compassion and tolerance which are very much a part of the Canadian fabric and very much a part of this Party's record. However, government alone cannot bring about economic renewal. We have put forward our direction for change, for full national consultation. We want all elements in society to help us plan the future. We recognize that this consultative process is itself challenging, too challenging for all too many Members on the other side who cannot resist the temptation to substitute shrill opportunism for real discussion.
Nevertheless, the process is working. More and more groups and individuals are making their views known on the wide range of issues put forward. The Government of the Canadian people is listening because, unlike some Hon. Members opposite, we do not have all the answers! We are listening because we are committed to changing the way the Government goes about making those policies. We were elected to do that and we intend to carry it through.
I noted earlier that there is not much point in trying to prove that a few months' worth of government policies are directly responsible for all the good economic news or for all the bad economic news that could be dredged up to suit a particular debating proposal. That is the kind of game the motion before the House would have us play. However, we take a balanced look at how the economy is progressing and at the various indicators of consumer and business confidence. We find far more reasons for encouragement than for the kind of despair
Supply
that so often emanates from across the floor. And, I might add, we are also a great deal more realistic about how long it will take for the country to overcome all the economic and fiscal problems that were allowed to accumulate.
We have embarked on a long, hard job of rebuilding the foundations for sustained economic growth. To succeed we will have to undo a lot of mistakes that were made in the past by the former Liberal Government. These were mistakes that have become part of the very policy framework that this Government inherited. I do not believe Canadians want another Government that simply moves in and redecorates by papering over the cracks in the walls, and certainly not another Government that uses borrowed money for wallpaper.
We have made a good start on the economic reconstruction that will get the economy growing and producing lasting new jobs for Canadians. The consultation process is in high gear and will remain there until just before the Budget. As well, there is still time for Members opposite to play a more positive role in this process. I hope they will be happy to accept that invitation. At the very least, however, I would ask them to look at all the evidence and come to a balanced view of the current situation on future prospects.
Look at how many new jobs have been created in the past few months and the fact that the unemployment rate is actually below what it was at the beginning of 1984. Look at the third quarter growth rate of 7.6 per cent for the economy. Look at the 1.2 per cent growth rate in real domestic product in November, an annual rate of 15.4 per cent. Look at the increase in manufacturers' shipments and new orders in November, both up by 8 per cent or more on a year-over-year basis. Look at retail sales which are up 10.4 per cent in the same month over a year earlier.
I could go on but my point is not to exhaust the reservoir of encouraging news any more than it is to pretend that every month or every quarter brings nothing but good news. We all know that the economy has serious problems that must be addressed in a serious, long-term way, and that is what the Government has done, is doing and will continue to do throughout its mandate.
While the motion before the House does not deserve to be taken seriously in some basic respects, it does raise some key issues for debate, a debate that we on this side of the House welcome and encourage. At the same time I must regret that the motion displays the same sort of mentality that helped create some of the basic obstacles, and those obstacles are now impeding the renewed growth in the economy and more effective job creation in the country. It is a mentality that attributes to government far more power than it has or should have to do what is best carried out in the private sector by individual Canadians. It is a mentality that, worst of all, would make the past failures of government into an excuse for more of the same old bankrupt Liberal policies of borrow and spend, borrow and spend. That is the policy that has discredited the present situation.
Because of past excesses, a perfectly valid use of government fiscal capacity to support economic growth and job creation

February 12, 1985
Supply
has been severely damaged and will be crippled unless we act to restore fiscal responsibility, confidence and the growth of the private sector where the real jobs for Canadians will be created and sustained. That job is well started but there are no short cuts except those leading to more of the same kind of trouble embodied in the motion before the House.
Since the Hon. Member who moved the motion was not listening at the beginning of my remarks, perhaps I could repeat my quote from Robert Louis Stevenson. It reads as follows:
You cannot run away from a weakness; you must some time fight it out or perish; and if that be so, why not now . .. ?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to put to the Hon. Minister but first I would like to make a comment. She does not seem to realize that the Opposition motion prepared by a Member of the NDP was directed to the Government. It called on the Government to do certain things and it is not my responsibility or the responsibility of the Liberal Party to respond to an Opposition motion. It is the Government's responsibility. We will participate in this debate but we will participate next. The Minister should be a little more humble while making her first appearance in the House in this debate and making ridiculous statements about who should respond to a motion directed to the Government. She finally did respond to the motion. For a while we did not know whether or not the Government had any response to make.
In her remarks the Minister said, among other things, that unemployment is a serious problem and that it takes two strides to cross a river, that it takes time to solve these problems. She also said that they do not have all of the answers and that they must consult. If that is the case, would she explain why the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), on July 5 in Prince Albert during the election campaign, said: "You are going to see tens upon tens of thousands of jobs being created just as quickly as the new Government can be sworn in"? That is what his Party told the Canadian people during the election campaign. Then it was saying that it had the quick and easy answers. Today the Minister is saying that they must cross the river in two strides; they need time; they must consult. Today she is saying that the Government does not have the answers. It deceived the people during the election campaign. How can the Minister reconcile what she told the House this morning with what her Leader said in Prince Albert on July 5?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member has not been listening to what we have been saying for the last few months. We have talked directly about jobs. We have talked about jobs throughout the campaign and we have been responsible for at least part of the jobs which have been created since the Government was sworn in. If the Liberal Party were in power, it would take full credit for every single job. We are more modest, Mr. Speaker. We think that there are people in the private sector and in the unions who do have some responsibility and should take some credit for the fact that they are working hard and creating jobs for Canadians.
Jobs have been created this fall. There will be more jobs created this winter, in the spring, on through 1985 and all the way through to 1988. Then in the second term of our mandate there will be more jobs.
I would like to point out that if government spending were the answer to the nation's problems, as the Hon. Member of the Liberal Party would have us understand, then why was unemployment and the deficit proceeding in lock-step toward all-time highs? That point has been made not only by myself but by many private sector economists who really viewed with a jaundiced eye what was happening in the country.
I might also point out that this country is taxed at a higher rate than most other countries and it is very difficult for people in the private sector who are paying these taxes to also create jobs, given the mountain of debt for which they are paying which was created by the former Government. This has been an ongoing problem in this country for 20 years and I think we are turning it around expeditiously.
The Canadian people as well think that we are turning it around expeditiously. The Canadian people have responded very positively. I myself have had 10 or 12 consultations with groups that have expressed faith in the economic agenda and in what we are trying to do. They have all indicated their support not just for what we are trying to do but for the fact that they intend to return to their role in the private sector and provide us with assistance.
I might also point out that in the Province of Newfoundland there have recently been very exciting developments that will lead to more jobs in that province. We all know that the former Government was not able to reach an agreement with that province and that everything was at a standstill. Newfoundland was a province that was discouraged and felt that its resources and challenges were not understood by the federal Government. Now we have a new approach of which we are all very proud. We are proud of the future the agreement will bring and the challenge that has been faced up to by the Government of Newfoundland and the Government of Canada. This was done in order to meet the challenge of the future and to create jobs in a province in which they are desperately needed. There is very little that I can add to what I said in my speech, to the government record in this connection and to the dismal failure by the Liberal Party to provide leadership in this area throughout the years before we took office.


Mr. McKenzie:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Minister on her efforts, and for pointing out that Saskatchewan should have been mentioned in his motion because of that province's great economic upswing.
There are problems with this motion. The Opposition has spoken about the discredited policies of the Government and that it is opposed to tax increases. I would like to ask the Minister if she supports the payroll tax of the Manitoba Government. That tax is an unnecessary burden on business in Manitoba. Businesses in Manitoba are having a difficult time
February 12, 1985

as it is without having additional taxes imposed on them. I do not understand the motion. The motion states that the New Democratic Party is against taxes, but it does not mention the tax in Manitoba.
When that tax was First introduced, higher interest rates were in effect and consumer purchasing was down. Therefore, businesses could not pass the 1.5 per cent payroll tax on to the consumer. I will speak on this tax in more detail this afternoon. The only thing that tax produced and stimulated was inflation and unemployment. Will the Minister give the assurance to the Elouse that the new Government will not implement a payroll tax similar to the one in Manitoba, which has been detrimental to growth and has caused increased unemployment?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the Hon. Member for his question. I would not in any way want to comment on the policies of the Manitoba Government in meeting its agenda. I am sure that Government understands, as does this Government, the difficulties which small and medium-sized businesses are having in meeting payroll taxes. Provincial, federal and municipal Governments all understand that.
Obviously, the Manitoba Government is making its own efforts to meet a difficult situation, as is this Government. The important point which I would like to make in that connection is that we would not dream of suggesting that the Manitoba Government should alter its policies to meet the agenda of this Government. We hope that Hon. Members will understand that the federal Government had a mandate given to it by the Canadian people to meet the challenge of providing jobs for the future. In providing those jobs, this Government expects the same respect from the provinces which it is giving to them. We know it is an important part of the process in Canada, which is a country made up of many strong regions which have different personalities and problems. Every Canadian is very proud of their own particular region or province. We are all trying to meet the same objective-a prosperous Canada which has jobs for all who want and need them.


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has indicated that she is interested in real discussion. Three times during her address she compared the number of jobs which were created since the Conservatives took power to the number of jobs which were created last year. Does the Minister realize that on a month to month basis since the Conservatives took power there have been fewer jobs created in the country than were created during the Turner administration? Does she realize that this Government has created fewer jobs in the country than were created in the last three months of the Trudeau administration? It works out to 33,000 jobs per month under the Turner administration and 32,000 jobs per month in the last three months of the Trudeau administration. However, it works out to 27,000 per month under this administration.
If she is interested in real discussion, she should not compare the figures to those of last year or to those of the Sir John A. Macdonald years. She should be honest about it. Does the Minister realize the flaw in that argument? Will she advise her
Supply
Cabinet colleagues-and in particular the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney)-not to use that argument because it is a complete fallacy?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly aware of the figures which have been cited by the hon. Member. I might point out to him that the Turner administration consisted almost completely of an election campaign. Members on the opposite side of the House were out on the campaign trail, essentially leaving the country to do what it does best, which is to get on with its job in the economy. With the absence of the Liberal Party in Ottawa during the past summer, more jobs were created.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in this debate on what is considered by Canadians to be the most serious problem in the country today. According to the Gallup poll which was published on January 28, 1985, 56 per cent of those polled said that unemployment was Canada's top problem.
I am not in a position to comment on the Manitoba situation, although I am sure that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) will do that this afternoon. It is my understanding that Manitoba has had success-as opposed to the Conservative provinces-because it took full advantage of several federal programs which were implemented in the last year or two.
While I am not in a position to comment on employment programs in Manitoba, I am in a position to comment on the policies of the present Government. Before and during the election campaign last summer, Conservative Members promised thousands and thousands of jobs. A few minutes ago I cited the statement which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made in Prince Albert on July 5. He said that tens upon tens of thousands of jobs would be created as soon as the new Government was sworn in.
If we compare the rhetoric of the election campaign, in relation to jobs, with the speech given today by the Minister- I admit that what the Minister said today was more reasonable-we would conclude that it was deceitful for that Party to make those promises during the election campaign because it gave a pretence to the Canadian people that it had some answers. The Government said that it had the answers, the blueprints and the means by which to solve the problem. Today the Minister quite rightly said that the Government does not have the answers and that it must consult. She said that it takes two strides to cross a river. When I asked her to reconcile her rhetoric today with the rhetoric of the election campaign, she spoke about all sorts of things but never answered the question. The Government does not have the answers. She admitted, as have many Ministers, that it will consult with everybody in the country and that hopefully a consensus will come forward. In other words, the Government will not lead, it will follow the common denominator of the

February 12, 1985
Supply
country and do things on which it will receive a broad consensus, if it can ever do that at all. I say "at all" because we have seen where the consultation process has led so far.
Since the election, what has the Government done about unemployment? The only major thing which it did was reintroduce, immediately after the election, the Canada Works program for this winter. That was a program which was introduced by the Liberal Government. The Government says that it is opposed to direct employment and throwing money at problems, but it did introduce and claim credit for the fact that the Canada Works program was put back in place for the winter. That program is very much similar to the program which we had last winter and the winter before.
What else did the Government do? After two months of procrastination it announced a summer employment program. Most of the elements of that program are very similar to the Summer Canada program of last year, although it has less real dollars and a higher priority for student employment with big business. The Government consulted for two months and ended up with a program which was not very different from the previous program. The program has a different name, and the Government has mixed the elements of that program around a bit, but it put a bigger priority on big business, which is a serious change. It is detrimental to the program. Nevertheless, the Government did not come up with anything startling or new to solve the problem of summer employment. The Government has not put forward a specific or new plan to deal with the unemployment problem.
What has the Government done, Mr. Speaker? It has cut here and cut there. First, it cut the First Chance program which had not simply been promised but had received the approval of the Treasury Board to go ahead. That program would have trained 100,000 young Canadians a year for five years at a cost of $1 billion a year. That program was cut and replaced with a pilot project which would train 4,000 young people a year at a cost of $27 million. So the Government abandoned a program which would have dealt with the problem in a massive way. It still admits the problem is there because it has a pilot project in order to deal with it, but it is a piddling little program called the youth training option which deals with only 4,000 young people at $27 million a year.
Second, the Government cut $432.3 million from the budget of the Department of Employment and Immigration. It cut that money from the Department which is supposed to deal with these problems. Employment assistance and entitlement had $200 million cut; mobility programs had $2.8 million cut; employment services had $1.3 million cut; and general industrial training had $40 million cut. The Summer Canada program was cut and then the Government put it back under a different name with some slight changes. In addition, the Canada student loans program which helps students deal with
training and education was cut by $5 million. The young workers' exchange was cut by $3 million. Environment 2000 which provided jobs in conservation, forest management and environment protection, had $22.8 million cut. The young entrepreneurs' program had $10 million cut. Katimavik, which was an excellent program for young Canadians, had $30 million cut, and Parks Canada had $19.5 million cut.
So in the short period the Conservatives have been in government they have not done one specific new thing at all to solve the unemployment problem. Canada Works, which was our employment program, was put back, but nothing else. Government has cut a lot of programs which were beneficial to the creation of employment. That is its record so far.


Mr. Foster:: PC means "poor Canada".


William Warren Allmand: The Government has no policy, no plan, and it is searching for one now. It does, however, have a general philosophy which has been expressed time and time again by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald).
At this point, I must make one comment. We are having a debate on the problem of unemployment which 56 per cent of Canadians say is the most serious problem in the country, and I must say that 1 am extremely surprised that the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Minister of Finance are not here. We have two Ministers of State present and 1 congratulate them for being here, but it shows the seriousness with which the Government is dealing with this most important problem.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I rise on a point of order.


William Warren Allmand: There is no one on the front-bench at all, and the Minister of State is here to answer the very serious charge-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) rises on a point of order which I foresee will be the fact that the Hon. Member should not refer to the absence or presence of specific Hon. Members.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That is right, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I believe the Hon. Member should know that.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: It is acknowledged parliamentary decorum not to do that. I cannot remember any instance when we ever did it while we were in opposition.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: There is always a need for a bit of levity in a serious debate, but I would be pleased to send over to the Hon. Member some quotes from Hansard which show that when those members of the Government were in opposition they used to raise this matter almost daily.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I can't remember that.
February 12, 1985


William Warren Allmand: While the Conservative Government has no programs to deal with unemployment, no specific blueprints and plans, it has enunciated a general policy. That general policy has been that if the Government more or less withdraws from the picture, gets out of direct employment, stops throwing money at the problems, as the Government has put it, then the private sector will come along and create thousands and thousands of jobs. We are told that business will pick up in the areas where the Government pulls back.
Of course, Mrs. Thatcher in England has espoused that philosophy and I believe in England there is an unemployment rate of 13 per cent. I am not saying that that is the only reason for that high unemployment rate, I am sure there are other reasons as well; but to suggest that the answer to the unemployment problem is that sort of philosophical approach is wrong. In the United States it is true that the unemployment rate has come down, but it has come down on the basis of a very strong military and defence construction industry. The manufacturing of armaments in the United States is one area where budgets are being increased, which in turn is propping up employment in that country. But that is a situation where goods are being produced, the purpose of which is to wage war, and I don't believe that in the long run that is the way to solve economic or employment problems.
As a Liberal, I disagree with the basic philosophy being espoused by the Conservative Government. We are told that in time we will see that it will work. 1 doubt that we will ever see it working. I wanted to put this question to the Hon. Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) when she spoke: The Minister of Finance said on November 8 that unemployment will come down only as the United States interest rates fall and, at best, will average 9 per cent for the rest of the decade. What we have here is the Minister of Finance for the Conservative Party telling us that he really cannot do very much about the unemployment problem in Canada, that it will depend on the United States interest rates and, in any case, it is going to stay around 9 per cent for the rest of the decade. Is that the approach of the Conservative Government to unemployment? That is what its Minister of Finance said on November 8.


Mr. Hopkins:: It's like everything else; it's a made in Washington policy.


William Warren Allmand: Exactly. I would like to point out to this House that the philosophy now being espoused by the Conservative Party is also at variance with the philosophy of the Conservative Party under the leadership of Mr. Clark and Mr. Diefenbaker. Those two Conservative Governments at least believed in direct employment programs. I believe Mr. Diefenbaker in the early 1960s started the winter works program, so he believed in direct employment. But we now have this new conservatism which is withdrawing from that sort of thing in the hope that the private sector will pick up the slack.
I would like to point out that in this country that will not work. The greatest periods of prosperity and job creation we have had in this country have been under what might be called
Supply
mixed economy regimes. That is where Governments have intervened to sustain and promote employment and at the same time help the private sector to expand and to become more productive.
I should point out that during the election campaign the present Prime Minister promised that over the life of his first mandate 552,000 jobs would be created. That would be from the fall of 1984 to approximately the fall of 1988. In the first term of the Trudeau Government, from 1968 to 1972, 800,000 jobs were created. The Minister would say: "Sure, they were created but why should you take credit for that?" I agree with her. But the Conservative Government is now trying to take credit as well for every new job which is created. All we are saying is that if you compare the period from 1968 to 1972, which was Mr. Trudeau's First term in office, you Find that
800,000	jobs were created.


Mr. Gormley:: What went wrong after that?


William Warren Allmand: We still maintained a high record. I will give the facts on that and I hope you will still be as enthusiastic as you are now. Canada, even in the 1970s, had the highest record of job creation of all the western countries and there are OPEC Figures to prove that.


John Kenneth Gormley: Why didn't you continue?


William Warren Allmand: We did continue. The situation was that the very good record of job creation was still not able to deal with the very serious problems in this country which are structural and market-oriented. There are many causes and many complex problems. The Minister today admitted they were complex problems.
It is very interesting to compare some of her statements today with what our Ministers were saying in the House last spring. Those statements are very similar, such as: "It takes time. It's a complex problem. There are many aspects to the unemployment situation in Canada". She is saying that now. However, she and her Party were not saying that during the election campaign.
In any case, to have prosperity in this country, economic growth, high productivity, we need the proper mix of government intervention and private initiative. The Hon. Member across the way from Manitoba can accuse me of being a socialist but I do not pay much attention to that because I know this has been a successful formula over the years. Even if the private sector does pick up and produce a lot of new jobs, and I hope they do, there are a lot of things that have to be done which will never be done by the private sector. There are services for people. The Canada Council on Social Development, appearing before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration last spring, told us that they had identified in this country over 300,000 jobs which had to be done for Canadians in the area of social services that were not being done. The present chairman of the committee, the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), I believe, was on

February 12, 1985
Supply
the committee at that time. These jobs were not being done because the financing was not there to support them, things such as taking care of senior citizens, the illiterate, continuing education, rehabilitation programs for drug and alcohol abusers, slow learner education and programs for native peoples and so on. The private sector is never going to do those kinds of things so they have to be done by governments or agencies supported directly by government.
What can be done? Is it necessary that we in this country live with double-digit unemployment for the rest of this decade or even the 9 per cent that the Minister of Finance seems willing to live with? I do not think so. If we look at some other countries in the world-I know more about them than I do about Manitoba, I hate to admit-the unemployment rate in Austria in 1983 was 4.5 per cent with an inflation rate of 3.8 per cent. It is a relatively small country living next door to an economic giant, West Germany, yet it is able to maintain through a mixed economy system a relatively low rate of unemployment and inflation.
In Japan, a completely different type of country, the unemployment rate in 1983 was 2.7 per cent and inflation was 1.8 per cent. That is a very interesting situation because Japan is very much into new technology, robots and automation. Some Canadians argue that if we bring in new technology we are going to have a higher rate of unemployment. Well, here you have Japan, a leader in the world, with 2.7 per cent unemployment. In 1983 Norway had 3.3 per cent unemployment and Sweden 3.5 per cent. So it can be done.
In the short time I have left, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I personally believe, as I have recommended in several other Budget debates in the last couple of years, that we should have a six and five program for unemployment. Make the same effort in unemployment that we made in inflation when we brought it down from 12 per cent or 13 per cent to what it is now, 4 per cent or 5 per cent. We made it the highest priority and put a lot of effort into it. I think we should do the same for unemployment and we can do it through a mixed program.
To begin with, Mr. Speaker, we help the private sector become as efficient and productive as possible, even if that means the loss of jobs in certain manufacturing sectors. By doing that we will keep those wealth producers in Canada. We will not lose them by maintaining an inefficient system. We help them adapt to the new technology so they can compete with these other countries. Then we put a lot more money into retraining and upgrading so that people displaced by this new approach and the changes in our industry and economy will be redirected into those new jobs and trained accordingly. That requires not pilot projects of $27 million, it requires programs of $1 billion a year. It requires a lot of money but it is an investment in the economy of the country.
In addition to that we also need changes in our work time schedules. Through a greater emphasis on education by way of student loans and government support for education, there would be a delayed entry of young people into the workforce if they were all getting the education they really require. We
should also, through encouragement and incentive, allow people who want to retire early to do so so they can leave the workforce and young people can come in at the bottom and get some of those jobs. We know that under the new Charter of Rights it will be illegal or unconstitutional forcibly to put a man out of work just because he is 65 or 60, or whatever it is; but we can have incentive programs for early retirement. I know they are being studied now and they are very important to this whole subject.
We could also encourage part-time work which has all the benefits of full-time work so people who want to train for part of the week or take care of families can also work. If we properly supported part-time work it would also leave open some jobs for other people to work at. In addition, we should support the recommendations of the many reports relating to paid educational leave for skills upgrading and training.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I believe the problem can be solved. We can bring down unemployment because it has been done in the countries I referred to. But it will not be done if the Government continues to follow the philosophy it has been espousing so far. I say philosophy because I cannot criticize the Government for the programs it has put forward; there have been very few programs. However, I urge the Government to look at what is being done in other parts of the world and to listen to some of the comments being made.
There was a very interesting program last night on The Journal where a number of economists from Canada and the U.S. were discussing these very matters. Many of them were putting forward recommendations similar to what I am putting forward today. In any case, except for the man from McLeod, Young, Weir Limited, they did not agree with the philosophy that seems to be espoused by the Government. Therefore I urge the Government through this motion to take seriously the demands being made, that in its consultations it does not put on blinkers but looks at some of the things being done in places which have been successful in bringing down the unemployment rate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is a very active Member and chairman of the Special Committee on Employment which went across this country a few years ago and produced an excellent report. I want his opinion on the program announced last week, the special Student Employment and Experience Development program. Does he think it is really going to be adequate, especially in rural areas of this country?
Under that program the Government allocated $165 million to offices only. If you are in a rural area like Algoma or Manitoulin, then the funds will be allocated perhaps to Sudbury or Sault Ste. Marie. The rural communities and businesses, Indian bands, municipalities and non-profit groups will really be in competition with much larger groups from half a dozen districts. In the past ridings like Algoma would have an allocation of, say, $968,000 and now they really have none. A similar allocation would provide about 100 projects and 500
February 12, 1985

jobs. Now there is really no allocation so there is really no guarantee that those rural municipalities and other groups will receive any amount of funding. I really wonder whether this is advantageous to rural municipalities.
The other problem that I see in rural areas, and I am sure the Hon. Member would have some advice on this, is that in slow growth areas of the country where the economy is not very strong I wonder whether the private sector will use that program because they have to put up half the funding. Instead of providing additional assistance for hard-pressed areas, those funds will flow into areas which are relatively better off and have more prosperous businesses that can take advantage of the program.
By the same token, in the past municipalities received 100 per cent of the funding. They now have to provide 25 per cent of the compulsory contributions and all of the equipment costs. In the past that was all provided: a small municipality could employ three or four people and get $7,000 to $10,000 in funding. They now receive only 75 per cent of the funding to assist in training students. I believe we will be short of funds in rural areas.
Under the old Summer Canada program there were a lot of funds available through the departmental stream for Indian bands. In my constituency there are about 12 bands with 7,000 or 8,000 status Indians. They will now have to compete with businessmen from big cities such as North Bay and Sudbury. In the past they were able to apply for funding through the Department of Indian Affairs. The Hon. Member has had a lot of experience in this. Does he really believe that this program will be fair in assisting the slow growth areas where unemployment has hit the hardest, such as in northern Ontario, certain areas of the Maritimes and northern Quebec? Is this funding going to be gobbled up by the rich municipalities and businesses in the faster moving and more economically sound areas of the country?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in the last Parliament there was the Task Force on Employment Opportunities for the '80s made up of seven Members of Parliament; four from the Government, two from the Conservative Party, and one from the NDP. We travelled extensively throughout the country and met with business organizations, unions, universities and community groups. We worked for over a year and then produced a report. It was made very clear in the report that direct employment programs were necessary. It was also made clear in our recommendations that there had to be a mix between government support for private sector employment and for community and municipal employment creation.
The Member makes a good point. In the announcement made the other day of $205 million for the summer employment program, there was no specific allocation of money for community organizations and municipalities as opposed to the private sector. As a matter of fact, the Minister said that there was a priority for summer employment with the private sector and, in particular, with big business in the private sector.
Supply
There are many parts of Canada where the big business private sector is not strong. In some areas such as the Gaspe, parts of Atlantic Canada, northern Ontario and Quebec it is non-existent. Yesterday in the House I asked the Minister to reconsider and put aside a good percentage of that money for community groups and municipalities.
Let us look at the allocation made under that student summer employment program. Out of the $200 million provided last year, Newfoundland got $5.5 million; this year it will only get $5.1 million. Last year Nova Scotia got $6.2 million; this year it will only get $5.7 million. Prince Edward Island received $1.2 million last year; this year it will get $.7 million. Last year New Brunswick got $5.8 million; this year it will only get $4.9 million. Last year Quebec got $43.7 million; this year it will only get $41.9 million. Every province east of Ontario will receive less money this year. Due to equalization the poorer provinces of Canada, which need help the most, are getting less money. I do not know how that is justified.
Another interesting point is that right after the Minister announced her program, executives of several of the big companies which she had consulted with said that they could not make any commitment to hire the thousands of young people that they were expected to. They said that they would try. A Noranda official said: "You can't hire students when you are laying off their mothers and fathers. At worst, Noranda expects to hire 100 students more than the 1,300 they hired last year, but the number depends on business increases". Students will be ready for work around April 15. They are relying on jobs with the big corporations. I do not know what students will do in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and northern Ontario.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is now over. For resumption of debate, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, (Mr. McKenzie).


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on this NDP motion. They are criticizing policies of tax increases and spending cuts, but they fail to make any criticism of the NDP Government which implemented a regressive anti-labour tax in Manitoba. It is called the Manitoba payroll tax. It has even been severely criticized by some of the most left-wing journalists in Manitoba. In order to cope with this tax, businesses in Manitoba have had to lay off people to cover the cost of the payroll tax which they have to pay to the NDP Government. I visited businesses in Manitoba which are expanding. It was explained to me that they could hire more people in their plants if it were not for this regressive Manitoba payroll tax. This has discouraged businesses from investing in Manitoba. They preferred to go to provinces which did not have this payroll tax. Farmers have to pay this tax as well, as though they did not have enough problems to contend with.
I see the coalition is working today. There they are, huddling again, just like they did between 1972 and 1974. I am

February 12, 1985
Supply
sure the Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) will remember what happened in those days.


Mr. Althouse:: We are looking at the new Whip
appointments.


Maurice Brydon Foster: You didn't make it, Dan. You're not going to be a Whip.


A. Daniel McKenzie: The NDP supported the Liberals 19 times in a row to bring about economic chaos in this country during that period. The NDP Government in Manitoba is removing the hydro rates freeze which was put in place by the previous Conservative Government. As a result hydro rates have increased. This increase in hydro rates was another shock for businesses and farmers since during the election campaign Premier Pawley promised that the freeze would not be lifted.
So much for NDP campaign promises. This regressive antilabour tax forced Kimberley-Clark to leave the Province of Manitoba. It is now expanding in Ontario where there is no 1.5 per cent payroll tax. Shell Oil closed its plant in Manitoba because it is just too expensive to stay in business under the NDP Government in Manitoba.
Cut-backs are mentioned in this motion. However, nothing is said about the Finance Minister of Manitoba announcing that he would make cut-backs. If cut-backs have such a negative effect on employment, why is the NDP not criticizing their colleagues in Manitoba? This motion should condemn them for the cuts if they will cause unemployment.
In an announcement in November, the senior Cabinet Minister confirmed that the provincial Treasury Board had asked Cabinet Ministers to scrutinize certain expenditures and submit programs and services that could be cut back or limited. There is not much consistency in the motion. The NDP condemns taxes but condones provincial NDP increases in taxes in Manitoba. There is no comment about the Minister of Finance there who is introducing cut-backs.
I received a document today from the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses. They realize that the uncontrolled spending must be brought under control. They state in their brief:
Although CFIB suggestions for modifying the tax system are not costly in national terms, we suggest the following area where the small business community can and should contribute to the government's efforts to reduce the size of the federal deficit.
I commend that association for realizing that something must be done.
I am not in favour of commonly using the word "cut-back" because it is actually the elimination of waste, mismanagement and duplication. That is what we on this side are trying to do and it is something that was never done under successive Liberal Governments. One only needs to read the Auditor General's Report, which gets worse every year, to have evidence of uncontrolled spending. Now that the Liberals are in opposition they have an immediate answer for everything.
One of the most amusing scenes I have ever seen was during the Liberal leadership campaign last summer. During that leadership campaign one would think that the Liberals had been in opposition for 20 years because each candidate had a solution for everything. If that was the case I do not understand why we have unemployment and huge deficits today. The Liberals have been in power for 20 years with majorities during some of that time. If they had all the answers, why did they not implement all those policies in order to prevent unemployment and the high deficit?
Let us review how unemployment originally began. Between 1972 and 1975 when the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) was the Minister of Finance, the number of unemployed rose by 164,000 and youth unemployment climbed by 109,000. This became worse over the years until the number of unemployed at this time is 1.5 million. Where were all the brilliant policies and why were they not implemented at that time? Obviously the Liberals had the wrong policies.
In that twenty-ninth Parliament the NDP supported the Liberals in 19 consecutive non-confidence motions. During the election campaign I heard a very interesting comment on Radio Station CJOB in Winnipeg. A very prominent New Democrat said on the radio that the best governments are minority governments. Unemployment increased by 164,000 and youth unemployment climbed by 109,000 during a minority government. Is that what the NDP describe as good government?
While there are no quick fixes or instant solutions, we are certainly making great strides. The energy agreement in Newfoundland yesterday was certainly well received by the people of that province and it will create much employment. Furthermore, the economic conference and the First Ministers' conference will produce more plans with regard to creating employment. When the energy agreement is reached with the western provinces, more employment will be created at that time. We will not implement another disastrous energy policy which caused so many problems for all of Canada, particularly the west.
While we are being told about the prosperity in Manitoba, we are not hearing the same comments from the business community. Let me quote John Bulloch, President of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, in an article in the Winnipeg Free Press:
Manitoba's New Democratic Party government is the most anti-business regime in Canada, John Bulloch, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said yesterday.
"It still hasn't dawned on this government that the new jobs and Manitoba's hopes for a better future depend largely on a revitalized small and medium-sized business sector," he told a news conference one day after the federation's annual meeting, held in Winnipeg this year.
"The government of Manitoba clings to the lame philosophy that only it can solve all the problems and that only it can breathe new life into its sick economy."
"Manitoba seems blind to the fact that its policies are doing just the opposite."
February 12, 1985

He said 60 per cent of the federation's members in Manitoba implemented pay cuts or pay freezes while the province increased the salaries of public servants by about 10 per cent.
Therefore, not everyone agrees that it is all milk and honey in Manitoba. I recall that in 1969 we had a balanced budget in Manitoba. There was stability in the country and there was steady growth. Subsequently, all Hades broke loose in that province in regard to the budget deficit that has been increasing and causing very serious problems there.
Furthermore, the NDP like to give the impression that they are the only ones interested in health care. That is not true. That Government's regressive payroll tax in Manitoba has even affected rural hospitals. An article in the Winnipeg Sun on December 10, 1982 states:
Municipal taxpayers may have to bail out rural hospitals that are being swamped with red ink because of the province's payroll tax.
Several hospital administrators said yesterday that the payroll tax is swelling their deficits and they don't know where they are going to get the money.
It is as if our hospitals don't have enough problems!
"The 1.5 per cent payroll tax is killing us," said one administrator who did not want to be identified. "Taxpayers aren't going to be happy about seeing a hospital tax."
Carman Memorial Hospital is typical of what is happening in many facilities across the province. The hospital pays $1,000 each month in payroll taxes and that only adds to the burden of a deficit hovering in the range of $50,000.
This additional $1,000 a month is being imposed on hospitals in small towns across the province. If that is not regressive and anti-labour, I don't know what is.
One of the strongest supporters of the New Democratic Party in Manitoba is Frances Russell, a columnist for the Winnipeg Free Press. She is a very strong left-wing socialist and certainly does not try to hide that fact. She recently stated in her column that "Pawley's payroll tax is no laughing matter. A regressive, anti-labour tax like this certainly is no laughing matter.
She states:
-the payroll tax is emerging as the new government's biggest embarrassment. It may even turn into a political disaster.
Let me tell the House that the Leader of the Opposition in Manitoba, the Hon. Gary Filmon, has stated that when he forms the next government, one of his first measures will be to remove this regressive anti-labour tax. We certainly hope that the NDP will summon enough courage to call an election in the near future so that we can remove this tax.
Frances Russell also states:
More importantly, the tax is proving to be a particularly bad move now that unemployment has become the number one political and economic issue in Canada. Manitoba's unemployment rate has risen 75 per cent in the past year-
About the second lowest increase in Canada.
During the last election campaign, as in previous electoral battles, the NDP has presented itself as the party that cares about the individual entrepreneur. Yet this tax bears most heavily on precisely that community, particularly in a recession when many small businesses are fighting to stave off bankruptcy.
That was a very regressive tax. The huge deficit in Manitoba was brought about entirely by the NDP because we had a
Supply
balanced budget in 1969. This is hurting Manitoba's financial rating. Manitoba's financial position has deteriorated significantly over the last two years. A major New York ratings house stated yesterday that it had lowered the province's credit rating. Standard and Poor's dropped Manitoba's rating from AA to AA-minus. They also dropped the rating for Manitoba Hydro.
Talk about fancy bookkeeping, Mr. Speaker! We talk about the Auditor General's report here; it is not any better in Manitoba. Mr. Ziprick, Manitoba's Auditor General, has stated that the deficit in Manitoba is unreal. In an article in the Winnipeg Free Press we read:
The auditor also took issue with another of the government's accounting practices relating to the Crown-owned Manitoba Forestry Resources Ltd. in The Pas.
Ziprick said the province wrote off a $51.3 million liability Manfor owed to the government in November, 1983. The investment was initially made in 1973 after the province had taken over the old Churchill Forest Industries.
The $51.3 million should have been considered a government expenditure at the time instead of being carried on the books at all these years, Ziprick said-
The government's public accounts also show Manitoba spent almost $270 million last year on financial charges stemming from the province's total debt-
The province's net combined debt is almost $6 billion or about $6,000 for each man, woman and child.
We have nothing to learn from the NDP Government in Manitoba.
In closing, I want to point out to the people of Manitoba, who will want to remember this at the next provincial election, that the provincial debt is rising under the NDP in Manitoba by $81 every minute. That is a sad, sick record of a very sick, socialist government and we certainly will not be implementing anything it would recommend in our Budget.
Some Liberals mentioned that there was no funding going to municipalities in the cities, that they are all cut off.


Maurice Brydon Foster: That is right.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I just want to point out that on Friday of this week I shall be visiting four community groups in my riding to deliver cheques from the Conservative Government in Ottawa.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, I was struck by the somewhat selective figures which the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) used. He said that in 1969 the Manitoba Government was operating without deficits. That is a very interesting date because it was in 1969 that the first NDP Government under Mr. Schreyer was elected. That Government was in office until 1977. It was replaced by a Conservative Government led by Sterling Lyon. That Government talked about the same kind of objections to deficit financing that we have heard from this Member and this Government. That Government implemented very tough restrictive policies as far as government expenditures were concerned.

February 12, 1985
Supply
I would like the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine to tell us-if he knows, and he should know-what the situation was in the last two years of the Lyon Government. Did it not have quite substantial deficits in the last year or two before it was defeated? Were not those deficits created by the simple political fact that the Government realized that its restrictive policies were unpopular and it had better try to regain some of the support it lost because of its tough economic measures?


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, when a snowball starts rolling down a long steep hill, it grows and grows to a huge size. The Lyon Government inherited that from the Schreyer Government. There are no easy, quick solutions to eliminate any debt that was started by the Schreyer Government, any more than we are going to be able to stop this rolling snowball down here.
The Hon. Member said I used selective figures. I would like to have had at least an hour-
[Editor's Note: And an object having been thrown from the gallery]:


Mr. Blaikie:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) has just been attacked from the Gallery. Have we got security around here or what?


An Hon. Member:: They have hustled him out.


A. Daniel McKenzie: That is somebody expressing-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: If you think that is funny, Dan, you have another think coming.


Mr. Young:: Shame on you, Dan.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: It is being spread now from all directions, Dan.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine may continue.


A. Daniel McKenzie: The Lyon Government was unable in four years to correct the huge deficit which was run up by the Schreyer Government and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) should know that. He has been around here long enough. I would like to read all the debt figures into the record today but we are limited to 20 minutes. I could have explained it to him in a lot more detail. We will have such a debt in this country unless we take some very positive steps because it will just get out of control. The New Democratic Party is about the only group that feels that we should do nothing about this huge deficit, but there is no way that the Lyon Government could correct eight years of Schreyer in four years.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, does not the Hon. Member realize that every Government in Canada, the federal Government and all the provincial Governments, are all operating with deficits; that the deficit is caused mainly by the fact that we have so much unemployment, that more than 11 per cent of the working population is not working, which means they are
not earning money? They are not drawing wages or salary and, therefore, they are not paying income tax. As a result people are not purchasing goods and services which other people produce. Rather than adding to the economy, they are costing the economy through payments of welfare and unemployment insurance.
Does the Member not realize that if governments of whatever stripe were to attack the deficit by really cutting back expenditures at a time when the private sector is not providing the jobs that are required, we would have even more unemployment, tens of thousands, indeed hundreds of thousands of people either drawing unemployment insurance or welfare, and in this kind of economy no government whatever its political stripe can really do much about reducing the deficit?


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, we have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt in this country that this philosophy of the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party that you solve all problems either by spending more money, borrowing more money, or going into debt has not worked. If that were the answer, we would not have 1.3 million people unemployed. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North is overlooking completely that the money has not been spent wisely. Billions and billions of dollars have been absolutely wasted. Billions of dollars have been thrown at different programs. These programs were not well thought out. There was no consultation.
This is one of the problems we have had in Canada under the Liberals. They governed by confrontation. They spent money without consultation with the private sector and the provinces. That is why we are being so well received by the business community and the provinces. They are saying that it is a refreshing change to be able to sit down and discuss these programs in advance instead of having the federal Government forcing issues. We have to exercise caution in regard to the size of the debt and the borrowing. The policies of the Liberal Government over the years have just driven billions of dollars of investment money out of the country.
This sort of thing has done the economy in places like Kentucky a lot of good. Kentucky advertises itself as the eleventh province because so much Canadian money has gone there. The same thing has happened in Florida, California and the Carolinas. More has been done for the economy in the States than in Canada.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
February 12, 1985


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the Government is perpetrating yet another vicious attack upon public servants in the National Capital Region. Not content with cutting thousands of jobs, sending everyone into a state of panic, and increasing unemployment, especially among women, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) is performing another raid upon the pocketbook of public servants by increasing parking fees for government employees from $42 to $75 and, in some cases, to $85 per month. This increase of 100 per cent and more is perpetrated in many cases upon people of modest means, sole support parents, and many others who cannot afford it.
The Government preaches restraint. Does the Minister of Public Works worry about public servants? No. Do Tory Members from Ottawa-Carleton, Ottawa West, Nepean-Carleton, Gatineau, and others worry? No, they do not. They have not said a word on this issue.
The Government is overcharging public servants and uses the money to pay for its extravagance and comfort, with 40 limousines, 40 chauffeurs, 40 political commissars, and a fleet of jets flying around delivering copies of speeches of Cabinet Ministers. This is Robin Flood in reverse. The Government is taking from the poor and giving to the rich-itself.



THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I am most distressed at a comment appearing in the Saturday, February 9, edition of The Toronto Star and attributed to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner). He is reported to have expressed the idea that Miller's Ontario is not the real Ontario because Mr. Miller's Conservative Government represents only one group of provincial voters-white Anglo-Saxon Protestants.
It is beyond the realm of possibility that the Right Hon. Member could have made such a racist statement. I know he is aware of the broad spectrum make-up of the Conservative Party. He is also familiar with the diverse ethnic and religious constituency represented by the Conservative Governments both in Ottawa and in the provinces. Persons of all races, creeds, and colours are welcome in the Conservative Party, as the Leader of the Opposition well knows.
I call for the Right Hon. Member to rise in his place at three o'clock today to confirm, correct, or deny this shameful statement.



CORRECTIONAL SERVICE


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, in 1977 the subcommittee on the penitentiary system in Canada made a very clear-cut recommendation which read as follows:
Retirement at 55 years of age must be mandatory for all employees other than professional staff, with full pension after 25 years of service. Early voluntary retirement at age 50 after 20 years of service should be optional.
I am now calling upon the Government to recognize the exceptional pressures and stresses which are part of every day life for a penitentiary guard in a maximum security institution. The present pension structure for RCMP officers and Armed Forces personnel recognizes the extra stress of those jobs. The pension plan of air traffic controllers also recognizes a tension syndrome peculiar to that group.
The statistics on shorter life expectancy for the custodial service point to the need for immediate remedial measures. I call upon the Government to take the initiative where the Liberals failed, and to carry out the recommendation made years ago and agreed to by all three political Parties as late as last June. I call upon the Government to introduce immediately legislation to allow this group early retirement.



PRICE OF GASOLINE-SUGGESTED FULLSCALE REVISION OF TAX SYSTEMS

Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the premiums and bonuses being offered to consumers by the oil companies. I think they should lower the price of gas instead of giving away hamburgers, glasses, dishes and discounts on cigarettes. Consumers in Beauce and Quebec are fed up with constant increases in the price of gas. They want to pay less per litre, they don't want premiums.
Why should the Quebec consumer let himself be skinned by the multinationals and the tax system without demanding an explanation, especially since last week, Canadian oil companies announced record profits? Quebecers feel they are getting a raw deal and they want to know what is going on.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest an overall review of our tax systems.
In the United States, where taxation is not as severe and oil producers engage in healthy competition instead of conspiring to "skin" the consumer, the price of gas is dropping everywhere. At this very moment, even considering the value of the U.S. dollar and the fact that their gallon is not as big as ours, it still works out to about $1.65 per gallon. In other words, almost $1 less than over here.
Canadians may rest assured that Progressive Conservative Members will work hard to protect consumers, whether they live in Beauce, in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada. It is up to us

February 12, 1985
to act, and I am confident that our Government will find a fair and equitable solution.



FISHERIES


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the fishermen of the great northern peninsula of Newfoundland and Labrador, and on behalf of the many development associations, fishermen's committees, and community councils, which spent a great deal of time, effort, and money to organize, on a very large scale, a conference to be held in the northern peninsula community of St. Anthony at the end of this month, to discuss the future of the Fisheries of that area.
The meeting had been arranged. People had committed themselves to travel hundreds of miles to be at the meeting. An agenda had been set. Everything was in place. Last week the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) and his officials advised the organizers of the meeting that they could not attend. Subsequently, the entire exercise had to be cancelled.
The fisheries of the northern peninsula of Newfoundland and Labrador are the most underdeveloped anywhere in the country. With the formation of a new federal-provincial fish company, it is now critical that special attention be paid to this area. The people on this coast, in the highest unemployment area anywhere in the nation, deserve the time and attention of the federal Minister of Fisheries. Furthermore, they deserve respect, especially for their efforts to organize the meeting. I plead with the Minister, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and Newfoundland's regional Minister to assure their attendance at the earliest possible-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, last week on February 6, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) presented her student summer employment program called Challenge 85. This program, with a total budget of $205 million, is to create 95,000 jobs for next summer.
Mr. Speaker, this announcement certainly cooled off Members of the two Opposition parties who have been harrassing and criticizing our Minister for more than two months, despite patient insistence by the Minister of Employment and Immigration and our Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) that in due time, they would be bringing in a program that was better structured, better designed and especially better adapted to the needs of students and young people.
Mr. Speaker, this program is unique in that it appeals more particularly to the private sector and our municipalities to show their confidence in students by giving them a chance to acquire practical training.
Mr. Speaker, on the weekend I held a number of consultations in my riding. I met with businessmen, representatives of chambers of commerce and municipal authorities, all of whom were quite enthusiastic, and I can assure you that in Temiscamingue, we are ready to meet "Challenge 85".



FEDERAL-NEWFOUNDLAND AGREEMENT ON OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsvray):: Mr. Speaker, we in the New Democratic Party, as do all reasonable Canadians, rejoice that finally there is an agreement between Canada and Newfoundland to pave the way for the development of the Hibernia oil field.
Yesterday I was in Corner Brook, watching the signing ceremony on television. A Newfoundlander next to me said: "Those boys are going to get sore arms from patting themselves on the back so much". Be that as it may, I am glad there has been an agreement.
I have three positive suggestions. First, we should consider a constitutional amendment to enshrine provincial control of offshore resources in the Constitution. As a western Canadian, I realize how important that is. Second, we have to be careful about the pace of development and about the creation of jobs. Energy, Mines and Resources officials told the energy committee this year that there would only be 6,000 jobs in the development of the field. Expectations are very high. Let us have some hearings by the energy committee to see if we can get more jobs, and to see whether we can get some jobs for western Newfoundland and Labrador which often feel left out of the development.
Finally, I would urge that the federal and provincial Governments not forget the traditional industries like fisheries and forestry where there really are jobs for the future. I am glad that there is a deal. Let us work on it and try to create more and better jobs. Let us not forget the fish and the forests as well.
February 12, 1985



FORESTRY


Mr. Andre Harvey (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals in this House, who are Members of a Party that wasted public funds for fifteen years and who represent what remains of the previous Government's institutional arrogance, make it impossible for us to forget their legacy. Our forest industry, for instance, is in great difficulty, and I am therefore very pleased with the particular emphasis placed on this sector by the present government. In a matter of weeks, I think we can guarantee the people of Quebec, of whom 250,000 work in this sector, that the sectoral agreement will meet the forest industry's essential requirements relating to research, management and all forestry problems.
Mr. Speaker, it is therefore important to emphasize consultation, as our Government is doing now, and help 250,000 forestry workers in Quebec, who, just as our senior citizens and students, may be assured our Government will "deliver the goods".



AGRICULTURE


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to call attention to the 50th anniversary meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture which is taking place in Hull, here in the National Capital area. We welcome the delegates to the capital of our country and to Parliament this week.
The CFA represents the producers of many agricultural commodities and tens of thousands of farmers across the country. The contributions which the CFA has made over the last half century to Canadian agriculture have been very great. We pay tribute to its many members who have given so generously of their time.
The CFA has called on the Government to reinstate the Canadian Agriculture Export Corporation which has been so successful in its first few months of operation, selling $16 million worth of commodities and making arrangements for additional sales of $100 million. However, the Government has sold out to the multinational agriculture exporting corporations so it is destroying Canagrex, a company we designed to help farmers sell their commodities abroad.
Canagrex is especially important at a time when countries like the United States and others are more aggressively marketing their commodities abroad. I call on the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the Government to start listening to the farmers and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture,
and to stop listening to the powerful multinational agriculture trading companies which are only interested in their own profits, not in the farmers of Canada.



PUNCTUALITY


Mr. Norman Warner (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, in Stormont-Dundas time is a very important commodity. When we have a meeting at three o'clock, we have a meeting at three o'clock. If the meeting starts before three, then the meeting starts early. If the meeting starts after three, then the meeting starts late. There is no confusion. Even my five-year old son Michael recognizes that when the little hand is at three and the big hand is at twelve, the time is three o'clock.
In Ottawa there appears to be some confusion about time, or possibly some lack of respect for time. Many meetings do not start when scheduled because participants habitually arrive late. If a meeting is called for three o'clock, the general attitude appears to be that the commencement time is not really three o'clock but perhaps 3.05, 3.10 or 3.20.
I can offer two solutions. We could consider that Ottawa be in a different time zone and agree that everyone would be 10 or 20 minutes late. There are some obvious problems with this concept. Perhaps we should consider the simplest solution. Everyone should agree that three o'clock means three o'clock, four o'clock means four o'clock, and so on. If we agree to meet at a certain time, then we have made a definite commitment and we should feel obligated to meet at that specific time.



YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, one of the great achievements of the last Parliament was the Young Offenders Act. On April 1, the Young Offenders Act is supposed to come into effect to include all 16 and 17-year olds across the country.
I learned this morning that the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) intends, when he is in Regina, to announce that that law will not apply to 16 and 17-year olds. I know that he has had considerable pressure from some provincial Governments not to let the law apply to these young people but to continue dealing with those young people under the adult system. I would remind the Prime Minister that the setting of that age is a federal matter and that the Parliament of Canada acted unanimously. Members of the Conservative, NDP, and Liberal Parties all agreed that 16 and 17-year olds should fall under the juvenile justice system and that that system should be toughened up, and it was toughened up.
I would call on the Prime Minister not to take this step backward, and remind him that there is legal opinion to the

February 12, 1985
Oral Questions
effect that it would be unlawful to exclude 16 and 17-year olds from the Act in some parts of the country though they are included in others once the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights come into effect.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are not in their seats because we have an extremely serious matter to discuss today. First there was the question involving the administration of justice, and now we have a new problem relating to national security.
I do not know to whom I can direct my question. With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I could wait until the Prime Minister is here. Can anyone tell the House of Commons if the Prime Minister will come here this afternoon?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of State (Government House Leader)):: Mr. Speaker, I expect that the Prime Minister will be in the House. If the Hon. Member has any questions to direct to the Government, he can go ahead and direct them. If he is waiting for the Prime Minister, he will have to wait for a few minutes yet.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this is an unusual situation, and we have some extremely serious questions to ask. I do not know whether or not the Chair would like to recognize me later on when the Prime Minister will be here so I can ask him questions. I would ask other Hon. Members to ask questions now.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Government House Leader. Could he, in less than five minutes, be more precise as to the time of the arrival in the Chamber of the Prime Minister?


An Hon. Member:: Here he is.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have some extremely serious questions to ask of the Prime Minister. The Government is finding itself in a very messy situation at this time when one of the major newspapers of Canada is saying that the Solicitor General of Canada has acted with bad judgment in the execution of his functions, and now we read in a paper that the Minister of National Defence has put himself in a very embarrassing situation that could involve our national security. In light of this, when will the Prime Minister take these
problems seriously, stop being a nice guy, and make the tough decisions that the Prime Minister is supposed to make?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as my hon. friend very inelegantly and inaccurately makes a reference to a statement in the papers, I should respond in regard to one serious matter that was mentioned and that, of course, is the question of national security, to use the term used by my hon. friend. When the allegations were first brought to my attention, I immediately, within moments, initiated a series of inquiries and assured myself that at no time and under no circumstances was the national security of Canada compromised in any way. Having said that, I want to tell the House that my hon. friend, the Minister of National Defence, will be making a statement in the House at three o'clock.


INFORMATION GIVEN TO PRIME MINISTER
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the statement by the Minister, and I am happy that he will be in the House to make a statement, I think it would be in the public interest to know when the Prime Minister was informed of the incident and who informed him. Was it the Clerk of the Privy Council, the Chief of Staff, or was it any person from the NATO organization?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I was informed by an appropriate official of the Government of Canada. I responded within minutes of that information being made available to me. I secured the assurances which I have just imparted to the House. I know that my hon. friend, in the interests of fairness, will want to wait for the statement of the Hon. Minister of National Defence.


ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING MINISTER
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I would like to point out to the Right Hon. Prime Minister that the questions we are asking at this time are not directed to the Minister of National Defence. We want to know what the reaction was of the Prime Minister of Canada and the attitude he took, because this is a very important matter involving Canada's reputation with its NATO allies. I would therefore like to know whether it is correct that the Right Hon. Prime Minister was informed of these events in November or early December and why he has not acted until today.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the assurance I gave the House, the Hon. Member insists on insinuating that a matter of national security was not dealt with. I have already given the House the assurance that moments after the information or the allegations were brought to my attention, I acted immediately in order to be in a position to give the House and my colleagues
February 12, 1985

the assurance that there was no national security problem of any kind whatsoever.
That being said, I know Hon. Members will want to hear the Minister's statement at three o'clock this afternoon.


TIMING OF INFORMATION
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the national security of Canada. It is a very serious question. What did Canada's Chief of Defence Staff report to the Prime Minister about the allegations which are outlined in today's Ottawa Citizen, and when did he tell the Prime Minister? What did the Clerk of the Privy Council report to the Prime Minister about the allegations which are outlined in today's press, and when did he tell the Prime Minister? Finally, did Lord Carrington, Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, during his visit to Canada in late January, or any other NATO official, tell the Prime Minister or any other Canadian official about these very serious national security allegations?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague asked if Lord Carrington or any other NATO official brought this to my attention. The answer is in the negative in both cases. As I indicated to my hon. friend, the information was brought to my attention by an appropriate official of the Government of Canada, and I immediately acted upon it in regard to the question of national security.


PRIME MINISTER'S ACTIONS
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. It is obvious that the Prime Minister has known about these allegations for some time. It is also obvious, from what he has said, that he has been informed about them. Why has it taken the Prime Minister weeks, or maybe two months, to react? Why did he not act prior to this particular moment when he is pressured into it by the media? Does the Prime Minister not realize that national security matters can affect our country's national security with our NATO partners, that he must act now, and that he should have acted previously?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend does the House a disservice. In response to a direct and important question, I indicated to my hon. friend that, immediately upon receipt of the information, I acted to assure myself and the Government that there had been no breach of security of any kind. That having been done, I think my hon. friend would also agree that it is important that individuals in this House, or elsewhere, not be tried- except in serious matters of national security-in regard to innuendo and unsubstantiated allegations. I can assure Members of the House that I acted with propriety and celerity to ensure that all information related to the suggestion of national security was dealt with properly.
Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, on this very serious question, certainly we believe it to be appropriate to hear the statement of the Minister of National Defence at three o'clock, before responding to that statement.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister and it concerns the meeting which took place October last between the Solicitor General and the Premier of New Brunswick. I should make it clear that it is not our objective in any way to retry charges which have already been dealt with in the courts, or to engage in a trial in the House on the basis of allegations which were based on leaks, speculation, and innuendo.
Does the Prime Minister consider it appropriate that the Solicitor General, the Minister who is responsible for the RCMP, should meet with an individual, in this case the Premier of New Brunswick, when that individual is under investigation for a federal offence, before charges have been laid in connection with that offence?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Commissioner of the RCMP, who is a man of impeccable reputation, indicated today that at no time, directly or otherwise, was he influenced, nor was there any suggestion of influence, brought to bear by any member of the federal Cabinet or Government, including the Solicitor General. I believe that the best indication of the propriety of the conduct of the Solicitor General was the fact that sometime after that meeting a charge was laid against the Premier of New Brunswick.


SOLICITOR GENERAL'S CONDUCT
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister could address himself to the question. It is very straightforward. Does the Prime Minister believe that it is appropriate that the Solicitor General of this country should meet with an individual who is under investigation for an offence, before charges are laid? Under what circumstances are such meetings to be considered appropriate in the future?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think this matter was effectively aired yesterday, and I think the response was pretty clear cut. Any Hon. Member who feels that he has an allegation or a charge to make against the Solicitor General, let him make it, let him put his seat up for grabs, and we will see what happens.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the question is clear. Does the Prime Minister intend to leave Canadians unclear as to whether or not he, as the Prime Minister of Canada, believes it to be appropriate that the Solicitor Gener-

February 12, 1985
Oral Questions
al, responsible for the RCMP, should meet with an individual who is under investigation by the RCMP, before charges are laid, and subsequently communicate with the Commissioner of the RCMP that individual's side of the story? Is that really considered by the Prime Minister to be appropriate conduct by the Solicitor General?


Martin Brian Mulroney: 
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INQUIRY RESPECTING PRIME MINISTER
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has asked that the charge be made. The charge is that an improper meeting took place which brought the administration of justice into disrepute.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Whose charge is that? Who is thinking that?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: What the Prime Minister has had to say about the assurances of the Commissioner only goes so far as the activities for which the Commissioner of the RCMP is responsible. Nothing has been said about discussions with justice officials, with law officers of the Crown, or discussions with individuals in the Solicitor General's Department, whether these occurred or not.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: All of these questions show the impropriety of the meeting. What I want to ask the Prime Minister is to confirm that he himself met with Mr. Hatfield during the course of the investigation before charges were laid, and to tell us whether the investigation was discussed.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that because I did not meet with Mr. Hatfield at any time, as my hon. friend suggests. And there was no communication to justify the insinuation of my hon. friend.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


COMMUNICATIONS INQUIRY
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, if I hear the Prime Minister saying that he did not meet with Mr. Hatfield from the time that the marijuana was found until the laying of the charges-which is what I take it he is saying-I want to ask whether he communicated with him in any other way, and whether his officials or staff met with or had discussions with officials or staff of Mr. Hatfield respecting this investigation.


An Hon. Member:: He's fishing.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I had no communication unless it was in the course of official business, and even on that I would have to look at notes. But I can assure my hon. friend that there were no communications between me and Mr. Hatfield at the time in question.


APPROPRIATENESS OF MEETING WITH PREMIER
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to ask the Prime Minister a question about the meeting. I want to make it clear to the Prime Minister that no one is questioning the Solicitor General's integrity.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Frith:: His judgment.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: His ability to be a Minister.


Ian Deans: What is being questioned is his judgment. Recognizing that what happened subsequent to the meeting between the Solicitor General and Mr. Hatfield is irrelevant, is it the judgment of the Prime Minister that it was appropriate for the Solicitor General to meet with anyone who in under investigation by the RCMP, over which the Solicitor General has jurisdiction? Is it appropriate for the Solicitor General to meet with a person who is actively under investigation-in advance of any charges being laid-to discuss the investigation or what is going on between the RCMP and that person?


Martin Brian Mulroney: There is no evidence or suggestion, I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Solicitor General in any way influenced the course of the inquiry or the conduct of the case. Indeed, I would hope in fairness that my hon. friend would acknowledge the appropriateness of the remarks of the Commissioner of the RCMP, who said to the contrary. He said that he is completely satisfied that at no time was there any attempt, directly or otherwise, to influence the course of the investigation or the laying of charges. I think that the best proof of that is the fact that, some time after the meeting to which my hon. friend refers, charges against the Premier of New Brunswick were indeed laid. That confirms the integrity and the independence both of the RCMP and the Solicitor General.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 12, 1985


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Prime Minister is this. Is it appropriate for the Solicitor General of Canada to hold a private meeting with an individual who is under investigation by the RCMP while the investigation is going on, and in advance of charges being laid?


An Hon. Member:: Yes or no?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I would suppose that in a perfect world, with absolutely perfect individuals, everything at all times would work according to totally perfect criteria. This is a country and place of human beings with judgment, and I made the determination and the decision to entrust the portfolio of Solicitor General to my hon. friend. I can assure the House Leader that the Solicitor General has done nothing which would cause me to lose faith or confidence in him in any respect.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIME MINISTER'S KNOWLEDGE OF MARIJUANA DISCOVERY
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. I think it is becoming abundantly clear that the Government is stonewalling on this issue.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Question.


John V. Nunziata: The Solicitor General refuses to disclose to this House the nature of the discussions at that private meeting.


Mr. Crosbie:: Question.


John V. Nunziata: The Prime Minister himself, when I asked him last Thursday when he first became aware of the fact that the marijuana was found and whether he or any members of his staff communicated directly or indirectly with Premier Hatfield-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Question.


John V. Nunziata: -before charges were laid-the Prime Minister refused to answer. I would like to repeat my question today, and it is a very simple, straightforward question.


John Carnell Crosbie: That's the first one, if that is the case.


John V. Nunziata: And I hope we will get an answer from the Prime Minister. When did the Prime Minister first become aware that marijuana was found in the luggage of Premier Hatfield? And did he or any members of his staff communicate either directly or indirectly with Premier Hatfield in relation to the finding of the marijuana?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think-I hope, anyway-we fully answered the questions as set out last week by my hon. friend. At a given point of
Oral Questions
time, and I would have to check the date, the Minister of Justice, prior to a cabinet meeting or a meeting of Priority and Planning, took me aside to indicate that that afternoon, or the next morning, the RCMP was going to proceed to lay a charge in the case of the Queen and Mr. Hatfield. I believe that it was at that time and under those circumstances. As I have already indicated to my hon. friend, there were no communications by me and certainly none by the staff of which I would be aware at all.


PRIME MINISTER'S KNOWLEDGE OF SOLICITOR GENERAL'S MEETING
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, it appears that the Prime Minister is shirking his responsibility.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What is the supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?


John V. Nunziata: My question is straightforward.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It's a 20-minute speech.


John Carnell Crosbie: Nunzirata.


John V. Nunziata: I know, Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister found out that a charge would be laid. He indicated that to the House last Thursday. My question is when did he become aware that the marijuana was found in the luggage? Second, when did he first become aware of the secret private meeting, on neutral ground, between the Solicitor General and the Premier of New Brunswick? When did he first find out about those two situations?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I first became aware of the meeting to which my hon. friend refers last Friday, when I heard about it for the first time.


Mr. Gauthier:: What about the pot?


Martin Brian Mulroney: That apparently does not satisfy my hon. friends. Apparently the truth is not good enough for the Liberals who wouldn't recognize it if it was staring them in the face.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is character assassination. You are not after the truth. It is the assassination of character that you are looking for. We have stood up here and given you the full and complete answers, and it's not good enough for you.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: You want to assassinate reputations. That's what wrong with you.

February 12, 1985
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Mr. Cassidy:: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question on this very serious subject for the Prime Minister. My question is as follows: Does the Prime Minister consider it appropriate for the Solicitor General, who is responsible for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to meet a person who is being investigated by the RCMP before that person's trial has taken place?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is asking the same question in French which his colleague asked in English, and the same answer applies.


SOLICITOR GENERAL'S CONDUCT
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can put the question in English since the Prime Minister is refusing to answer it in French.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Morris Cassidy: Is it or is it not appropriate for the chief law officer of the Crown, responsible for the RCMP, to meet with a citizen of Canada who is under investigation for a criminal offence, prior to charges being laid in connection with that offence? Is that appropriate or not? Yes or no?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The conduct of the chief law officer of the Crown was commented upon not by myself or my hon. friend, but by one of the most outstanding law enforcement people in this country, the Commissioner of the RCMP. He said there had been no improper suggestions of any kind, and I would hope that my hon. friend would accept that.


FEDERAL-NEWFOUNDLAND AGREEMENT ON OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Morrissey Johnson (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday was an historic day for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Morrissey Johnson: February 11, 1985, will be looked upon by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as the first day that we became true Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Morrissey Johnson: A Progressive Conservative Government fulfilled a promise.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate that this is still a new procedure for some Members, but I would ask the Hon. Member to come right to the question, please.


Morrissey Johnson: My question is directed to the Minister of Energy. Yesterday the former Minister of Energy, the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice, told Newfoundlanders that two years ago he offered a better deal than what was signed yesterday.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Right on.


Morrissey Johnson: Would the Minister tell me, in her opinion-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I have not heard a question. Does the Hon. Member have a question?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Morrissey Johnson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister tell me in her opinion whether the statement made by the former Minister of Energy was true or not?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Maurice Brydon Foster: How long did it take you to write that one, Pat?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that if the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice had offered Premier Peckford a better deal, Premier Peckford would have taken it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: I can only assure the Member that, among the many unique advantages of the Atlantic Accord, the fundamental one was equality within Confederation. That is what Prime ,Minister Mulroney offered which the previous Government did not.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the subject matter of the meeting between the Solicitor General and Premier Hatfield. I want to give the Solicitor General a chance to clear up some of the concerns which surround this serious matter.
He has said that the meeting was proper, and apparently the Prime Minister agrees. I think the question in the minds of the
February 12, 1985

public, and I am sure of many people on all sides of the House, including Conservative Members-


Some Hon. Members:: No!


Donald James Johnston: -is, if the meeting was proper, why was the meeting held in secret? Why was the meeting not held in the Minister's office in the presence of officials of his Department, for example of Commissioner Simmonds, to whom the Prime Minister has made reference, and why was counsel not there from either his Department or the Department of Justice, instead of outside counsel, and why was there outside counsel?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the fact that the meeting was secret, as alleged, is not true. The meeting was a private meeting, and there was nothing secret about the meeting. The first time I was asked about the meeting I was glad to indicate that it had taken place. That is the first question.
Why was legal counsel there? Because I had confidence in a legal counsel that I have in connection with my duties as a Privy Councillor. The site of the meeting was simply a convenient site, and there was nothing sinister about its location or purpose. I think I dealt with most of these questions yesterday.


TOPICS OF DISCUSSION
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it is fairly clear that the Solicitor General feels the meeting was proper. In that case I suggest that all doubt could be eliminated if the contents of that meeting were to be made public. In particular, could he tell us whether at that meeting he may have discussed, even inadvertently, any evidentiary issues which could have affected the conduct of the trial? Will he also tell us whether he discussed the meeting, either prior thereto or subsequently, with his colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: can give my assurances to my hon. friend, who is a former Privy Councillor-


Some Hon. Members:: Still is.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: -that there were no discussions with other Cabinet colleagues about the contents of the meeting. He surely must know, being a Privy Councillor, that the kinds of discussions that take place either between myself and heads of agencies, or my deputy, are confidential and privileged information.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Oral Questions
We have all received an announcement with respect to the National Economic Conference, and Session IV to be held on March 22. There is a workshop on improving access for women, youth, natives, and the disabled. Can the Prime Minister explain to the racial minorities of this country why they are excluded from consideration in view of the need demonstrated, first, by Equality Now, the Abella report, the investigation of workplace discrimination in Toronto, and the recent report of a 75 per cent unemployment rate among blacks in Preston, Nova Scotia?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am dismayed at the implication in the question and I want to try to correct the impression left by my hon. friend, no doubt inadvertently. I have had the occasion of meeting with Mr. Stanley Hartt, the organizer of this session, and his staff. I know it is their intention to try to put together a conference which is representative of all groups in society to the extent humanly possible.
As to those mentioned by my hon. friend, I thought, in any case, they were to have been included. It was my understanding that that is the case. But I would be happy to review it again with Mr. Hartt and come back to the House to give my hon. friend the assurance that, in my judgment, a conference held without the inclusion of the kinds of people to whom he refers would not be a successful or appropriate conference.


ASSURANCE OF PARTICIPATION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer that was just given. I hope that the visible minorities will not be invisible in the final announcement. I will take the Prime Minister's answer to be an indication to about one million people in the country that he will direct those concerned to correct the significant omission.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to do that, should that be the case, but I think my hon. friend may have been referring to an initial advisory panel which went on to be very substantially expanded. In any case, I want go give my hon. friend the assurance that indeed those very important groups of people in our society to which he refers will very much be members of the conference.


FINANCE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. The Minister of State has carried the borrowing authority Bill through and will know that it has been somehow stalled and filibustered in the other place, to the extent that the country cannot raise long-term funds on the bond market and interest

February 12, 1985
Oral Questions
rates are likely to be seriously damaged in terms of the Government's cost of borrowing. Would the Minister tell the House what representations she has made to expedite the passage-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Skeena.


FORESTRY
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Forestry. Would he confirm that the Canadian Forest Service has identified the need for expenditures of $200 million a year to replant the
600,000	acres of backlog in British Columbia? In light of this, would he explain why he is recommending to his Cabinet colleagues that only $30 million a year be spent, since he and his officials know that this is inadequate to deal with the crisis in British Columbia which constitutes 50 per cent of Canada's largest industry?


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, that matter has been dealt with on several occasions in the House. The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion have indicated that there would be an agreement signed The British Columbia Government has indicated that it is prepared to conclude the agreement. Those negotiations are ongoing, and when there is a figure to be announced we will announce it at the proper time.


NEGOTIATION OF AGREEMENT
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Yesterday in British Columbia the provincial Minister of Forests, Mr. Waterland, stated that as far as he is concerned the negotiations are completed and that the agreement is being held up because "it is a matter of the federal Government finding funds to pay for their part". Is that correct?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, that is not correct. Perhaps the comment attributed to the official in British Columbia is simply a reflection of how the Senate is impeding the progress of the borrowing Bill. We were left, as Opposition Members certainly know, with huge borrowing requirements and, frankly, we need the cash.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Abolish the Senate.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It is clear that the secret meeting held between himself and Mr. Hatfield in a hotel room in Ottawa without officials, was wrong. It is against the long standing practice in England and Canada. As indicated by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston), the only way to clear the air on this is to tell us what happened at that meeting. Even though a charge was laid later, was there anything discussed at that meeting which could have assisted the defence, which is another matter not relating to the prosecution? I want to know whether there was anything discussed at that meeting that could have helped the defence.
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, unlike the other Solicitors General who questioned me yesterday, my hon. friend at least appears to know what a Solicitor General is supposed to do. May 1 assure him that there was nothing discussed at the meeting which was relevant to the defence or that in any way affected the subsequent results of the trial, as he knows.
I have answered all of the questions to the best of my ability as far as the background and meeting are concerned. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition accused me of interfering in the case. The RCMP Commissioner on his own, without any suggestion from me, clearly refuted that. 1 hope that the Opposition would have the decency at least to withdraw that inference.


NON ATTENDANCE OF OFFICIALS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, if the meeting was a normal meeting in the ordinary course of events, even though Mr. Hatfield was under investigation by the RCMP, would the Solicitor General tell the House why he did not have departmental officials, either his Deputy Minister or other senior officials, with him at the meeting? Why did he not have legal counsel from the Department of Justice with him? Why did he not have the Commissioner of the RCMP or one of his deputies with him? Why did he not have those people present at the meeting if it was above board and normal?
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I trust that the former Solicitor General is not suggesting that every time such a meeting occurs it is necessary to have departmental officials or police present. I hope he is not suggesting that. It was my decision to have the meeting. I took it because I thought it was appropriate. I did not involve others in it because I felt it was a meeting which was, by its nature, a private discussion. I took along a competent counsel. I took along a man of integrity, my chief of staff. Those are the circumstances.
February 12, 1985


NATIONAL SECURITY
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to be able to ask questions of the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister. I do not know if they are available. Perhaps I could address a question relating to the problems of security to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
We have been engaged in a number of quite delicate and sensitive negotiations with allies in relation to the new radar system, NORAD agreements, and other matters pertaining to NATO. How long has the Secretary of State for External Affairs known about this matter? Did he inform our allies of the potential security problems pertaining to this matter? Were negotiations suspended during the time that this matter was under investigation?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there were no security implications so there was nothing about which we had to advise our allies.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we regret very much that that action was not taken because a statement in the manual of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, which deals with security in External Affairs, indicates clearly that there was a security problem involved. It is the responsibility of the Government. Why did the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister not exercise their responsibility and inform our allies that there was a problem here which had to be cleared up, while these negotiations were going on?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member opposite is particularly difficult to get through to. There was no security problem. There was consequently no need to inform our allies.


TRUST COMPANIES
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Crown Trust, Greymac, and Seaway in Ontario were assisted by the provincial and federal Governments through the CDIC in re-establishing themselves under new management, resulting in no loss to any depositor. Will the Minister negotiate a similar arrangement with her provincial counterparts in Saskatchewan regarding Pioneer Trust?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, as I have stated previously, our First concern in
Oral Questions
the Pioneer Trust matter is for the insured depositors. We are proceeding as expeditiously as we can to ensure that they are looked after. We are exploring every possibility with regard to the final outcome of the situation regarding this trust company.


REQUEST THAT PUBLIC INQUIRY BE HELD
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, in light of the serious questions in this affair concerning the actions of Pioneer's senior management and those of the Government of Saskatchewan, as well as CDIC officials, who knew of Pioneer's problems for most of last year, will the Minister assure the House and the people of Saskatchewan that a full public inquiry will be held into the collapse of Pioneer Trust?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I have been in close contact with the CDIC, with officials of my Department, and with the Province of Saskatchewan. I see no need for a public inquiry at this time. I think that the behaviour in all cases has been appropriate. We are examining every aspect of the issue at this moment.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Inasmuch as the time for the launching of an appeal of the decision in the Hatfield case has not expired, I would like to know what the position of the Minister of Justice is with regard to an appeal. I would like to know how he would be able to exercise his duties in the fair and balanced manner expected of him, after having said in this House on February 7 with regard to Mr. Hatfield,-"I know the man and am a friend of his, I am happy that he was found not guilty".


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman might be prepared to abandon his friends whenever he sees it to his convenience to do so. I don't happen to agree.


John V. Nunziata: He is not the Minister of Justice.


Lloyd Axworthy: Get serious. You're a Minister of Justice.


John Carnell Crosbie: Do you want the answer? When this question first came up I told my Deputy Minister that I expected this case to be dealt with on the same principles that would be applied to any other similar case. They assured me that they would arrive at their conclusions on that basis, and I accepted their advice and their conclusions.
With respect to your question, on January 29 Premier Hatfield was acquitted and our prosecutor in New Brunswick advised against any appeal on January 29. Two days later, my advisers in the Department informed me that, after consulta-

February 12, 1985
Committee Reports
tion with the prosecutor and other senior law officers, no appeal was being considered.
After that, the defence ordered a transcript of the evidence, and a copy of the evidence was sent to us. My Department then reported to me: "A review of the evidence and the judgment does not lead us to alter our earlier conclusion that no appeal should be pursued." So no appeal is going to be pursued because I have been advised by my Department, my Deputy Minister, and the prosecutor, that no appeal should be pursued. Therefore no appeal is going to be pursued in this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Short supplementary.


OFFICIALS' DECISION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your courtesy in this regard. I would like to know how the officials in the Department of Justice could make a decision on an appeal before they had even received and reviewed the transcript?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. gentleman does not understand my version of English. I just said that the prosecutor who attended on the trial, who did the prosecuting, advised after the trial was over and the judge rendered his verdict that he did not recommend an appeal. Two days later my Deputy Minister and officials from the Department, following consultations with him, agreed. They did not need a transcript of the evidence to come to that conclusion.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: It is not in every case that you get a transcript of the evidence to decide whether or not to appeal. 1 don't believe the hon. gentleman is a lawyer, otherwise he would know that. The gentleman sitting next to him, whispering to him, doesn't know any more either, although he is a lawyer.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ms. Copps:: Tory justice is bad justice.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Hon. Robert C. Coates (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a statement before my peers and my Prime Minister. This afternoon I have tendered my resignation as Minister of National Defence to the Prime Minister.
An article published today in an Ottawa newspaper contains many inaccuracies and those inaccuracies are wrong, libellous and even suggest a breach of security. I have retained counsel and can give you the assurance, Mr. Speaker, that an action has been started against the paper in question.
I have assured the Prime Minister of my innocence and my conduct. I have served in the House for 28 years. I have served under three Prime Ministers. I have always respected the House, its membership and its traditions.
I also recognize the fundamental importance of my portfolio, one which is as sensitive as any in government. I am a man of honour who respects Parliament and I especially respect my Prime Minister. Accordingly, I have resigned as Minister of National Defence, effective today.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to say that I am sorry the Hon. Member-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must put myself in the hands of the House. This is obviously a very emotional moment for everyone.
The Member is no longer a Minister. We are hearing statements by Ministers. I will hear the Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien). However, given the situation, it would be my suggestion that it may be inappropriate to hear statements in response at this time. I will recognize the Member for Saint-Maurice.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am a long-standing member of the House, and I am very sorry to hear the Minister's resignation. I believe he has done a very honourable thing today and has shown that he has the right values. Rather than cause a reflection on his duties, he has acted honourably in offering his resignation. I want to congratulate him for doing the right thing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PETITIONS
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to
February 12, 1985

present a petition to the House on behalf of over 1,000 residents of the riding of Simcoe North and other ridings who request that the closing of the Wye Marsh Wildlife Interpretation Centre in Midland, Ontario, be reversed. This is in addition to the 1,700 names which I presented to the House on January 22, 1985.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in presenting a petition from 69 people from the towns of Strathmore, Rockyford and elsewhere. These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to amend the Criminal Code so that unborn human beings are protected by law from abortion, save in that rare instance where the only alternative to the death of the child is that of his or her mother.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Government House Leader)):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.	[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Riis:
That this House commends the Government of Manitoba for its positive policies of job creation which have produced the lowest unemployment level in Canada, and calls upon the Government to adopt a similar course of economic expansion rather than the discredited policies of tax increases and spending cuts which it has pursued to date and which are largely responsible for the latest unemployment statistics, which show an alarming increase of 167,000 unemployed between December, 1984 and January, 1985.
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise to comment in reply to the speech made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) prior to lunch. He stated in the House that his Government had a very good employment policy. The Conservatives may feel that they have a good employment policy. I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it depends on whose employment you are talking about. I am reading the list of political appointments that have been made since the election on September 4. It is interesting that there seems to have been numerous opportunities for employment for people of a certain political persuasion.
Supply
I notice, for example, that nine Hon. Members of this House have just been appointed as Assistant Whips for the Progressive Conservative caucus.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Without pay.


Don Boudria: There definitely is a government make-work policy here. It works well for all Conservative Members. I am glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary saying "without pay". I would like to know whether the former Tory Member of Parliament who was appointed the Ambassador for Disarmament was appointed without pay; whether Mr. Robert Byron who was given interim supervision of the advertising management group was also hired without pay; whether Mr. Paul Marshall and Mr. Lucien Bouchard were appointed without pay; whether Mr. Lawrence Hanigan was hired without pay.
There seems to be a very good employment strategy but I would like to argue that it is relatively selective. In other words, it seems that you have to be either a defeated Tory candidate or a former member of the Tory caucus in order to avail yourself of these employment opportunities. All this comes from a Government which has stated time and time again that it did not want to partake in partisan things, and that it wanted to have a parliamentary committee review political appointments.
Those are the comments I wanted to make in reply to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine. I disagree with what he said and I disagree totally with the remarks regarding the Right Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner). I think the Member for Vancouver Quadra was one of the finest, if not the finest, Finance Ministers this country has ever had, and indeed in a very short time he will again be Prime Minister of this country.


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


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate today on an Opposition motion concerning the disastrous unemployment situation in Canada. Considering the concern all Canadians have for this very serious problem, it is entirely appropriate that the Opposition, and I want to thank the Hon. Member who moved this motion, should draw the attention of the Government to the gravity of the unemployment situation in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I see to my dismay there are no Ministers in the House. I think there is a rule that there must be at least one Minister to take part in the debate. Mr. Speaker, if I were so inclined, I would even raise the question of whether we have a quorum, but I will refrain for the time being.
Mr. Speaker, before the election on September 4, the Progressive Conservative Party's slogan was: "Jobs, jobs,

February 12, 1985
Supply
jobs". They bored us all summer with that kind of stuff, claiming that as soon as they were elected, tens of thousands of jobs would be created in Canada and that the unemployed would at last find lucrative and productive employment. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, since this Government was elected, the results have been sad in the extreme. During the initial months of their mandate, they took credit for the results of policies introduced by the previous Administration. The gradual drop in unemployment we experienced at the same time was certainly due to those policies, and they used those results to very good advantage. Now, however, after several months of Conservative Government, we can see what the unemployment trend is going to be. Between December 1984 and January 1985, 167,000 men, women and young people lost their jobs, and the unemployment rate rose from 10.9 to 11.2 per cent. Since then, we have not heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) quoting statistics or the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) talking about job creation. We have not seen any backbenchers bragging as they were doing last fall when they took the credit for figures that were encouraging. Now that the situation is deteriorating they seem to have been struck dumb.
Last month, another 53,000 young Canadians lost their jobs-


An Hon. Member:: 500,000!


Jean-C. Lapierre: -and this figure should be added to the
500,000	young people who are now jobless.
Meanwhile, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) was travelling across the country and telling people: Do not worry, things are going to change! What change, Mr. Speaker? She announced her much touted program with a two-month delay, supposedly for the sake of consultation. However, looking at each aspect of this program, we must conclude that she probably used those two months to fight her Cabinet colleagues who did not want to give her the funding. After all, she said she spent those two months on consultation.
However, representatives of the Canadian Federation of Students who were with the Minister on the platform when she made her announcement-and they are certainly by far the most representative of young Canadian students-told the media a few minutes later: We were never ever consulted about the program she just announced.
An important aspect of that program was municipal involvement. Here again, the Minister supposedly took two months to consult. I got in touch with the Canadian Federation of Municipalities, Mr. Speaker, and this is the answer I was given: We were never consulted at all. This despite the fact that the Minister was talking enthusiastically about a new consensus as a result of consultation. When I put the question to her in the House, she had the nerve to say she had consulted with the Mayor of Gander. My colleague from Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) called the Gander Municipal Council and said: Is it true that the Minister of Employment and Immigration called you and you said that municipal involvement in Challenge '85 was the answer to your prayers? What he answered was quite the contrary, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration is really trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the Canadian public. She would have our young people believe that this summer the outlook will be very encouraging for them. The fact of the matter is that the statistics we saw today, and I take the Member for Champlain (Mrs. Champagne) as my witness, I will bet anything, Mr. Speaker, that we "ain't seen nothing yet", indicate that there will be a lot more young people unemployed next summer and that the Minister's program will be no help at all in dealing with the situation.
Mr. Speaker, private sector involvement was also touted as a broad consensus, and the rest. The Minister of Employment and Immigration said at her press conference: I met with seven or eight big wheels who promised us 10,000 jobs. The next day, representatives of these big corporations said: We never guaranteed her 10,000 jobs. Mr. Speaker, we now see that on three counts the Minister of Employment and Immigration has not been clear, straightforward or accurate. And this has not met with any opposition from their backbenchers.
This summer, when young people in their ridings come to see them, the municipalities will have to tell them they do not have an extra 25 per cent nor an extra 15 per cent to spend on social benefits, because the Minister got her program out too late ... In Quebec, all municipal budgets have been voted on; they could not know that the Minister of Employment and Immigration would impose a surcharge of 25 per cent for labour plus 15 per cent for social benefits and another 20 per cent for miscellaneous expenses.
I know that there are former mayors here, the Hon. Member for Champlain happens to be one of them. I am sure he was a good mayor and that he knows what a municipal budget is. He had a sharp pencil in those days and I suspect every cent was accounted for in his budgets. That is why he too knows what is going to happen. Most municipalities have already-produced their budget, so they are not likely to be in a position to do much to create jobs for young people. I hope he will take the floor later on to urge that such expenditures be fully paid so as to relieve the small municipalities in our ridings. It is all very well to say that the private sector will take over but, Mr. Speaker, there are some 32 municipalities in my riding, including one with a service station and a corner store, so where is the private business that will hire young people this summer, Mr. Speaker? It is the same thing in all ridings- municipalities made up mostly of farmers. The private sector is simply not prepared to hire students.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration announced another initiative, the fall stage of Canada Works, but here we are in the middle of winter and there again, she was not clear, concise and definite.
Mr. Speaker, you will notice one thing about your allocation which is supposed to be more generous than or at least equal to
February 12, 1985

that of your predecessor: the Minister of Employment and Immigration conveniently forgot to tell you that it has to be spread out over two years instead of only one, so you can imagine what will happen next year! I know that the Elon. Member for Quebec-Est (Mr. Tremblay) has already spent that money. I am convinced that during ... 1 forget the name of the riding of the Hon. Member on the other side-


Mr. Hudon:: Beauharnois!


Jean-C. Lapierre: He too has already spent all the money set aside for his riding.


William Warren Allmand: So have I.


Jean-C. Lapierre: The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) says the same thing. You will have the surprise of your life, because the Minister of Employment and Immigration expects that money to last for two years. That is what her budget provides, Mr. Speaker; it covers two fiscal years. I am certain that our honourable colleagues will have to eat humble pie when they realize next year that the Minister of Employment and Immigration, instead of giving them the same budget as before, will give them in fact only half of it and say: "I am sorry, but you used all of it the first year, too bad!" But we shall watch her closely. If the Conservatives do not, you can rely on us, Mr. Speaker. We shall watch her because we know that she is trying to hide the truth from the unemployed, but the figures speak for themselves. There used to be all kinds of programs. We are now being told to forget about those programs because the private sector will take over. As far as private investments are concerned, it seems that up to now, our money was flowing to the States. Now foreign investments will solve our problems.
The Government destroyed FIRA. The Prime Minister went to New York on his hands and knees to make certain that the Americans would say: "We finally have a flunkey in Canada." What did we get? Except for the fact that the Prime Minister lost his dignity, what did the people in Champlain, the people in Beauharnois and the people in Shefford get? Mr. Speaker, here is what they got, absolutely nothing for now! Private investment in Canada has not increased, contrary to what the Prime Minister had forecast. Even worse, we have a serious unemployment problem. Yet, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, who should show some understanding and compassion for the unemployed, not only is not helping them to find jobs, but has also decided to reduce their unemployment benefits. She is now hiring a special team, which is being called the "Flora Hit Squad", to try and persecute the poor unemployed.
Mr. Speaker, we can see what is going on in our constituencies. All the Members, especially those whose unemployment offices come under the Longueuil Data Processing Center, are well aware of what is now happening to a great number of unemployed.
I am convinced that, every week, in their riding offices, my colleagues see a good many unemployed workers who complain that they are still waiting for their cheques, that they have
Supply
been given the run-around by the data centre, that they have been eligible for three months but have yet to get any money at all, that the only thing left in the refrigerator is the light bulb, and that the landlord is harassing them because the rent is three months late. I know such cases and so do my colleagues. But what is the Minister of Employment and Immigration doing? Eliminating jobs instead of improving services. That has me deeply worried because not only has the Government failed to keep its promise to create jobs, but they are treating unemployed people like dirt. It is on that particular point that our colleagues opposite should urge the Minister of Employment and Immigration to give an account of herself.
We have heard of typical cases of proceedings taken against various people, more evidence of the fact that they are openly insensitive towards men and women who have precious little. In the course of the coming weeks, I intend to ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration to stop prosecuting the unemployed and persecuting poor people. I will take my hat off to her if she can find jobs for them, but that is a far cry from reality.
After seeing some of the elements of the summer program, Mr. Speaker, 1 am prepared to predict that her program will be a flop. I can tell you that it will not work out at the municipal level because most municipalities have already voted on their budget. I can tell you that the private sector program will not lead to a fair distribution of funds, particularly in the Province of Quebec, because cities and towns will take the lion's share to the detriment of rural communities. Since the allocations are not based on distribution by riding, there will not be fair and equitable distribution to take regional unemployment into account, and that has me worried.
Mr. Speaker, I am not interested in partisan politics, but I do want to make sure that the people . . . there is the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin) laughing his head off, he knows very little besides partisan politics, of course, but we are used to that kind of attitude. There is one thing I want to tell the Hon. Member for Charlevoix: instead of laughing at the unemployed as he is now doing in the House, he should see to it that the jobless in his riding are properly treated, that they get their cheques on time, that UIC public servants treat them as people who have paid their premiums. He should make sure that budgets are not cut, something which his predecessor was much better at than he is. What has he done for his riding since he first came here, Mr. Speaker? I saw his householders. The important thing is to make sure that the fate of unemployed people does not become the subject of partisan political debates. I think that the backbenchers are fully aware of that. They know it is difficult to influence the Cabinet. Their letters, releases and words sometimes reflect the fact that there is not much they can do. But that is not good enough. Take the floor, say what you think, tell everybody what your constituents think. That is what counts. That is why you were elected to Parliament, not to crawl on your

February 12, 1985
Supply
knees before the Cabinet. There may be an opening, but there are too many of you for that one job. That is not what you came here for, you have to speak up for your constituents.
Let us talk about those who claimed to have the ultimate solutions to the problems of unemployment. I am sure the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent) promised during the election campaign that he would find new jobs for textile workers. However, the Chairman of OCRI, who is one of the officials, has just informed us that the 17,000 jobs lost in the textile-clothing-footwear industry were nothing, that it was only a beginning. What is being done to introduce adjustment measures? The Chairman, their own top official responsible for the three industries, has bluntly announced that those industries were bound to suffer from further job losses in the years to come. What action is being taken? What is being done in Trois-Rivieres for Wabasso? What is being done in Cowans-ville for instance, for another industry, Tupperware, that is closing down, where the Hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mrs. Bertrand) was heard to say: "That is really too bad!" Come now! None of that will address the problem of the 165 unemployed women. What concrete action is the Government intending to take?
The Parliamentary Secretary certainly has all the answers to that, Mr. Speaker. I ask him to go to Cowansville and meet the 165 women who are laid off because Tupperware is moving to Manitoba. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will find out that those people have specific needs, that the early retirement program, for instance, could be extended to older people aged 50 to 65, with the 80 formula. Bill C-78 is an alternative for our poorer senior citizens who have reached a certain age, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to hear my colleagues opposite urge the Government to extend early retirement provisions to other areas, to other regions in Canada, especially to deeply affected regions as there are now in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, a lot could be said about the commitments that were made. And also a lot about the promises that were broken, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: Most of them!


Jean-C. Lapierre: most of them, and probably the only promise the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has honoured-


An Hon. Member:: The uniforms!


Jean-C. Lapierre: -there was the promise of new uniforms. On that point, takers beware! There was also the promise to appoint friends. The Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) says: As we had done. Yet, he was all for virtue and motherhood, a shining knight in armour during the elections. Yes, during the elections, those people said they would never do as the Liberals. Never! But now we realize they are doing worse. And this would be easy to prove. Do not worry, in the years to come, especially during the next elections, Mr. Speaker, the unemployed will remember those unfulfilled promises. And women also. Where is the legislation
on the equality of women in the labour force? I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Champlain does not even remember the 1980 campaign. There was the debate of his own leader. Let us stop rehashing those events of 1980, they have been in power since 1984. What about it? Now he has influence. Instead of writing to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), he should write to the Prime Minister and ask him to honour his commitments.
Mr. Speaker, all this goes to say that I am surely disappointed with this Government's performance, disappointed with their lack of imagination, and the realization that this Government which had answers to all the problems has managed to make problems worse, instead of finding solutions. And we have seen them in action for some months already. Unfortunately, all we hear about is consultation. 1 urge them to bring forward those solutions they had, for the well-being of Canadians, especially unemployed women.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Hudon) has a comment.


Jean-Guy Hudon: I want to make a comment, Mr. Speaker. I can understand my honourable colleague being disappointed. He is disappointed because he says that this will not work next summer. There is no reason why it should not. My honourable colleague is right to say that the municipal budgets have been approved. It is true that the municipal budgets have been approved, and most of them provide for premiums or hiring programs for next summer. Municipalities have always done this. It is not the first time.
The Hon. Member should at least recognize that we keep our promises. What we had promised was some participation, but we said that we would place more emphasis on the private sector. We should give the private sector a chance to prove itself next summer. We have no reason not to. You have developped an insatiable society. Last year, you approved special budgets for church roofs, judo schools, and so on. You have created such appetites that, today, no repairs are made to city halls, community halls or church roofs without an application for assistance being submitted to the Federal Government.
You have built a society in which people say: Everything must be kept as it was in the past. From now on, tomorrow is like yesterday indexed. This is impossible. Let us give new ideas and new programs a chance to prove themselves. The private sector will join in and so will the municipalities and the community sector. There is not much difference as far as the community level is concerned. If we give a chance to this program, we shall see that it can work quite well.


Jean-C. Lapierre: I am very glad to have heard the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Hudon). He has learned his lesson well. However, Mr. Speaker, if he is convinced he is right, why has the Minister for Employment and Immigration mentioned a commitment for 10,000 jobs? Something different was said the
February 12, 1985

next day. Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary is not doing justice to his Minister. She also said that she had consulted the municipalities. We can see that it is not true. She said that she had consulted the young people. She called in three or four young Conservatives. Is this what you call nationwide consultation? The Parliamentary Secretary, who certainly has a lot of potential, should widen his Field of vision if he wants to replace his Minister one day. He should have more imagination than she does, because she has not achieved much since her appointment, unfortunately. As for me, Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure that if a fellow like him stops learning his lessons by heart and reading the releases of his Minister and shows some imagination, he could eventually get noticed by the Prime Minister. However, if he continues to act in this way and to protect the Government like he is now doing, neither his constituents nor the Prime Minister will appreciate him.


Mr. Hamelin:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment of course on the marvelous speech made by the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre). Several times now, the numerous new Progressive Conservative members have been referred to as back-benchers. I would rather be ... I would like to say to the Hon. Member for Shefford that, even if I sit on the front benches, 1 would rather be a good back-bencher than a former half-minister. For the information of the Hon. Member for Shefford, I have taken stock of our investments in the Charlevoix riding and they now reach over $5.5 million. I am very proud of that since it is far better than anything ever achieved by my predecessor, who was a senior minister in his government.
I feel of course that there is still much to be done in Canada, in Quebec, in my riding and probably in your own, my friend. We are now trying to draw up the best plans to create jobs and, if possible, permanent jobs. Some have been made available under the program recently announced by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald).
We are also working to provide other tools and we hope, Mr, Speaker, that we will find together the best means to reduce as quickly as possible the sky-high unemployment rates which in some areas of the country, especially in mine are nicely fluctuating-this is an euphemism-between 30 and 60 per cent. It was the same under my predecessor who held some important portfolios in the former government but who could not, as he admitted himself, find any cure-all. I am now actively co-operating with my constituents to find practical solutions to the unemployment problems. It is not easy. It is a difficult task and a constant challenge. Such was the proposal made by the minister. I am now trying to carry out the task and 1 hope for quick results.


Jean-C. Lapierre: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin) missed the point. He has just indicated, in an effort to mislead Canadians, that the Minister had announced a permanent job creation program. The Hon. Member for Charlevoix is clearly off the track. We are dealing here with a temporary job creation program for students. And I am sure that when you check the blues, you
Supply
will see that the Hon. Member for Charlevoix referred to a permanent program. He is all wrong. This program is meant to last a few weeks during the summer months. It will certainly not improve the 30 to 60 per cent unemployment situation in the Charlevoix riding. It will certainly not improve the unemployment situation in the Shefford riding either. That is the point I have been trying to impress on him, that this initiative is too little and too late. My hope is that he will be able to suggest new proposals to his colleague the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Perhaps he will demonstrate more imagination than some of his colleagues, and he might be able to come forward with ideas for permanent solutions instead of merely temporary ones. I am aware that he sits on this side of the House as a part of the rump of the Progressive Conservative Party. I am sorry if I offended him when I referred to him as a back-bencher; perhaps I should have used the expression "front-bencher of the rump". Wherever he may sit, if he has some good ideas to put forward, let him rise in his place once in a while to express them, and we will be glad to listen to him, Mr. Speaker.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre). 1 looked at the unemployment figures which were released a few days ago by Statistics Canada and I saw that for the month of January, 1985, there were 1,483,000 people unemployed. The Hon. Member criticized the Conservative Government because of that and said that its programs were not working. However, Statistics Canada figures for the months of January, 1984, when there was a Liberal Government, indicate that there were 1,473,000 people unemployed. In other words, there are only 10,000 fewer jobs this year. As a matter of fact, if one looks at the Member's Province of Quebec, in January of 1985 there were 427,000 people unemployed. Under the Liberal Government, the rate of unemployment in January, 1984 was 14.2 per cent. I wonder where the Hon. Member was in January, 1984, when the Liberal Government was completely unsuccessful in dealing with this major problem. It seems to me that the more things change between the Liberals and the Conservatives, the more they are the same. Neither of those Parties has any programs or intentions to deal with this very major problem which afflicts the people of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) has one minute at his disposal to reply.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Yes, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to thank the Hon. Member for his question. I want to tell him that a year ago I was not satisfied with the results and 1 proposed solutions to the Cabinet. I am not afraid of what I said in previous years and I will keep on pushing for solutions. I only hope that my colleagues in the Conservative Party will also push. I am

February 12, 1985
Supply
not asking for miracles, I am asking them to push to ensure that the new solutions, which they promised to the Canadian public, become reality. I would like to know where those solutions will come from. I hope some of them come from the back benches. As I said to the Parliamentary Secretary earlier, 1 hope he has some imagination in that regard. However, we have not seen anything new. It was supposed to be time for a change. For God's sake, where is it?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker) on debate.


Mr. George Minaker (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take part in the debate on the motion which has been placed before the House by the Hon. Member for Kam-loops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). It states:
That this House commends the Government of Manitoba for its positive policies of job creation which have produced the lowest unemployment level in Canada, and calls upon the Government to adopt a similar course of economic expansion-
I will speak against the motion because of my history in Manitoba. Before I do that, however, I would like to take exception to what the Hon. Member said about Manitoba. He said that it was a have-not province. As far as I am concerned, Manitoba is not a have-not province. I am very proud to be a Manitoban, and particularly proud to represent a Manitoba seat in Parliament. I take exception to his calling Manitoba a have-not province. If he is referring to the fact that we are one of the five provinces which qualify for equalization payments, I would possibly accept that. But to call Manitoba a have-not province is not correct.
I sat in opposition in the provincial Legislature for four years during the time of the Ed Schreyer Government. I also sat in the Sterling Lyon Government as a government Member. I think that regardless of what government is in power-whether it is Liberal, NDP or Conservative-they are all concerned about unemployment. No one likes to see students, youth or others in this country unemployed. I want to make it clear that we are not condemning the NDP Government of Manitoba for trying to create employment. However, I would suggest that I do not agree with that Government's approach. Later on in the debate, I will cite some of the statistics about which the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) questioned the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) this morning.
The motion before us contains two questions. One of those questions is: What is the right approach? Is it that Government should provide all the jobs and that Government should become bigger and bigger? Or do we take the approach which the Conservative Government believes is correct and put the finances of the Government into shape in order to create an economic confidence in the country so as to bring private investment back to create the long-term jobs which we are looking for at the present time?
What the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap said is not new to me. I heard it many time when I was in the provincial Legislature in Manitoba. We are talking about the different
philosophies of two Parties. The NDP believes that we should have bigger and bigger government, which would create jobs and have more government-owned companies. That is not surprising. One of my colleagues in the provincial Legislature-I believe it was the Hon. Member for Morris-had a copy of the Regina Manifesto, which was the philosophy of the CCF Party when it was founded in 1934. When I hear NDP Members stand up in this House and in the provincial House, I reflect back to many of the resolutions which were in that Manifesto. It called for more government involvement, ownership and spending of taxpayers' money. Therefore, it is not surprising to me that NDP Members in this House talk against the Investment Canada Bill. Neither is it surprising that they support more government spending to create more jobs. That philosophy is not particularly agreeable to me, otherwise I would be sitting with those gentlemen. I think the correct approach to this problem would be to let the free enterprise system have the initiative, interest and confidence to go ahead with its work in our economy.
This morning the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap said that the Manitoba Government had created approximately 20,000 new jobs in 1983, and that in the First half of 1984 it created another 10,000 jobs. I felt it incumbent upon me to call Statistics Canada to obtain job figures for the past few years. I looked at the yearly average of those statistics. In other words, the yearly average of employment in StatsCan figures takes into account the valleys and the peaks, month by month, for a particular year, whether it be for employment, unemployment or the labour force. When the Conservative Government in Manitoba assumed power in 1977, there were
423.000	employed people in Manitoba. Those people were employed either by Governments, federal, provincial and municipal, or by private enterprise. When the Government left office in 1981, four years later, there were 453,000 people employed. StatsCan figures indicated that we had created
30.000	new jobs. I cannot agree with the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap because the Statistics Canada figures show that in 1982 there were 442,000 people employed, in 1983 it was 461,000 and in 1984 it was 465,000. So that the total increase in jobs over the last three years under the New Democratic Government in Manitoba amounts to 12,000 new jobs. Now where are all the jobs that Party is claiming are out there? In actual fact, if the Hon. Member wants to check this month's Statistics Canada report, he will find that the actual number of employed people in Manitoba for January, 1985 was 460,000.
What does this mean, Mr. Speaker? We have a Government in Manitoba which is taking the same basic approach as did the former Liberal Government. It is taking the approach of spend, spend, hire the people under government programs and leave the free enterprise system where it is. It is the kind of "We don't need free enterprise" approach. Yet that Government has created only something like 12,000 new jobs according to Statistics Canada. In 1981, when the New Democratic Government took over, the figure was 453,000. In 1984 it is
February 12, 1985

465,000.	Yet the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap is claiming there were 21,000 new jobs created last year in 1983 and another 10,000 jobs in the first half of 1984. Somewhere someone is a little mixed up.
What these figures make very clear, Mr. Speaker, is that the government approach in Manitoba is for short-term jobs. The average statistics take into consideration the peaks and valleys, but at the end of the year the question is: At how many new jobs have we actually averaged out? That is why our Government does not believe in that kind of approach. We are looking for long-term jobs, not short-term jobs, which will perhaps qualify a person for unemployment insurance benefits after he or she has put in a period of part-time work. I have talked to the young people in my constituency, Mr. Speaker, and they have told me that they want a job which they know will be there a year from now. They do not like this idea of taking a job for six weeks or 12 weeks and not knowing whether, after the three months is over, they will have a job or whether they will have to go on unemployment insurance. They want longterm jobs.
I have an excerpt from the Winnipeg Free Press of May 12, 1984. I know I am not supposed to say this, but I wish some of the Liberals were in the House at this time because it pertains to the activities of the Liberal Party in Manitoba. It relates to how the Liberal Party in Manitoba tapped into the work job program. The article states that it was hoped that the job program would not be political, but the Liberal Party seemed to have tapped into it and it actually helps pay for office help in the provincial Liberal Party's office. I do not believe that these are the kinds of jobs we are looking for. We are looking for long-term jobs which are created by private enterprise.
I was advised that one of the priorities of the Manitoba Highways Department was to put up the job program signs. We have these all over Manitoba. They are white and green. They advertise how good the job program is in Manitoba. I do not think that that is the kind of jobs we are looking for, where the priority is putting up signs. We are looking for long-term programs.
If this program is so good, why did Manitoba have the slowest rate of employment growth of all the provinces between December, 1983 and December, 1984? That statistic is right out of Statistics Canada. It had the slowest rate of growth of employment compared to all other provinces. That Government has taken the same approach as the former Liberal Government, and obviously it is not working, Sir.
The other thing that is wrong with the Manitoba job fund is that it perpetuates the notion that the best way to create jobs is for Government to give someone the money to go out and hire someone. That does not work, Sir. There has to be a reason in the first place to hire someone other than that you receive x number of dollars from a level of Government. It does not matter how many dollars you have, there is not enough job fund money to spend in order to get those 40,000 people who are unemployed in Manitoba working again. We need that free enterprise system which acts as the engine of growth in our economy.
Supply
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North asked this morning about the deficit. I believe, if I remember correctly, he said to my colleague that the former Conservative Government had deficits as well. I would like, through you, Mr. Speaker, to advise the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North that the Conservatives took over part way through 1977, in October of 1977, and at the end of that fiscal year there was a deficit of $191.3 million. When we took over at that time it was projected to be $270 million, but we were able to cut it back to $191 million in the first six months of our term. We will take credit for the following four years. Then, from 1978 to 1979 there was a $84.3 million deficit. In 1979-1980 there was a $44.3 million deficit. We will take credit for the last half of 1982. When we changed Governments in the fall, the deficit was $251 million. That makes a total of $429 million of deficit accumulated in four years under our Progressive Conservative Government.
I would like to advise the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre that in 1982-1983, under the New Democratic Government, there was a $435 million deficit. In 1983-1984 there was a $426.7 million deficit and in 1984-1985 it has been estimated that the deficit will be in the order of $488.7 million, for a total of $1,350 billion of accumulated deficit in three years. The Province of Manitoba in its first 112 years of operation accumulated a deficit of $1,344 billion. It has taken the new NDP Government in Manitoba just over three years to double that figure. Now in Manitoba, a family of four is looking at something like $619 per year in taxes just to cover the interest, Sir. Yet, even with all of that spending, which is the philosophy of the former Liberal Government and the present NDP Government in Manitoba, what are the employment statistics?
Employment in Manitoba in December of 1984 increased by only .9 per cent-that is less than 1 per cent-while in the rest of Canada, employment increased by 2.4 per cent. That tells me something, Mr. Speaker. It tells me that the rest of Canada believes that what the Conservative Government of Canada is doing is correct. But in our own Province of Manitoba, which is still under the influence of the NDP Government and its philosophy of "spend, spend, spend", employment has only increased by less than 1 per cent.
The NDP Government has done a number of things that I believe are discouraging economic expansion by the private sector. First, it introduced the one-and-a-half per cent payroll tax, which is a disincentive for people to hire in the first place, or even to create new jobs. The other thing which has happened is that under the NDP Government in Manitoba, spending by that Government has increased by 42 per cent while the economy has only grown by 24 per cent. Spending has outpaced the economic growth by some 18 per cent. The annual manufacturing investment, Mr. Speaker, has fallen off by 19.9 per cent over the last three years. Yet those Hon. Members talk about increased investment in our province. The NDP administration has gone even further. It has increased the sales tax to 6 per cent from 5 per cent. Hydro rates have increased by 22 per cent over the past three years. I was proud to be part of a Government which never increased taxes. We actually
2274

February 12, 1985
Supply
reduced the income tax and froze hydro rates. That had its effect, no question about it. We saw the results in our time as the Government when we had 30,000 new jobs. With the present NDP Government, StatsCan shows only 12,000 jobs.
I think it is very clear, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Canada do not want to see that happen again. They got rid of a Liberal Government which thought the answer was to spend, that money could cure all. The only firm basis for economic recovery is a restoration of confidence. A confident private sector will act to create jobs without the need of government interference and control. Jobs created that way are far more likely to last than jobs created by the injection of short-term borrowed money into the economy. This has been the chief cause of the lack of confidence we have experienced.
The task before us is enormous and the challenges are not going to be surmounted by throwing money at our problems in the hope they will solve themselves. They must be met with steady and consistent policies backed by a government with confidence and determination. We look to the private sector, labour, professional groups and the provinces to help our Government steer the course to economic recovery and job creation. Government cannot do it all.


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


David Orlikow: our people earn their living in the fishing industry. The Government said we have a huge deficit and must cut back on government expenditures. It cut back some $4 billion. It cut back in the funding of research in precisely the fields in which most people work and in precisely the fields in which we will have even greater difficulties if we do not get our act together.
All the other industrialized countries in the western world, as well as Japan, are spending 2.5 per cent or more of their Gross National Product on research and development in the fields in which they feel jobs can be created. In Canada under the former Liberal Government and now under a Conservative Government we are spending much less than that. We are spending a little more than 1.5 per cent of GNP on research and development. In Canada our situation is much different from that in other countries because the bulk of research that was being done here was either done in government laboratories or at universities funded by Government. The Government cut back on funding of its laboratories. It is going to cut back on the funding of research at the universities. It is hoping that the slack will be picked up by the private sector.
I hope that the Government is right, Mr. Speaker, but on the basis of past experience, with all the attempts of the former Liberal Government by way of tax concessions, tax write-offs, grants and loans, the private sector did not pick up the slack. I am not saying that we do not want the private sector to do it, because of course we do. The fact is that the private sector did not concentrate any efforts on research and development. It is not likely to because the major economic corporations in the country are owned by foreign interests. The multinationals, whether American, German or British, usually ensure that their research and development is done in their home country. Unless we have an industrial strategy geared to encourage the use of our resources, we are simply not going to have the kind of development we need.
I would like to say a few words about the speech of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker). He suggested again and again that our Party is opposed to the private sector and that we believe the Government should do more and more. There is no truth in that, Mr. Speaker. The Member talked about the Regina Manifesto. Of course the Regina Manifesto talked about a great deal of public ownership because when it was drafted in 1933 the free enterprise system, as we knew it then, was dead in the water. I believe it would not be far wrong to say that 25 per cent or more of the people of Canada were unemployed at that time. The members of the CCF were not the only people who said that the free enterprise system was dead at that time. That was 50 years ago and a great deal has happened since. Germany, Spain, France, Holland, Belgium, Norway, Sweden and Denmark have had or now have social democratic Governments. All of those countries have a mixed economy. In all of those countries the Government runs and owns certain fields. The private sector owns and operates more than does the Government.
Supply
I am surprised at the Member for Winnipeg-St. James because he has not even studied the situation in Manitoba. Manitoba has a publicly owned telephone system. I was not extablished by some wild-eyed radical socialist. It was established in 1907 by a Conservative Government. The Premier at that time was Sir Rodney Roblin, who is the grandfather of the present Leader of the Conservative Party in the other Chamber. Manitoba has a publicly owned hydro electric system which was established by Liberal Governments. Nine of the ten provinces in Canada have publicly owned hydro electric systems. There has been no more successful a hydro electric system that that of the Province of Ontario. That publicly owned system was established by a Conservative Government . The Province of Ontario has had a Conservative Government for the last 40 years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: Hon. Members applaud, Mr. Speaker. I ask them why a Conservative Government, which believes in a free enterprise system, continues to have a publicly owned system. It is because it is obvious that the publicly owned power system operates more effeciently and cheaply than would a private system. That is all that we have said and all that we will continue to say. There are certain fields in which a publicly owned operation is more efficient and brings more benefit to people than a private system would.
The Government of Manitoba has decided that if it must choose between putting people to work and having a larger deficit, or cutting back on the deficit and having more people unemployed, it prefers to have a large deficit. The Government of Manitoba has spent over $200 million on jobs programs. Of course some of those jobs are temporary. However, I suggest to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James that a temporary job is better than no job at all. The Government of Manitoba did not just throw money away. It has tried to develop projects in co-operation with municipalities and the private sector. Many of those jobs are temporary, but many of them have led or will lead to permanent jobs.
Look at the situation we are in, Mr. Speaker. We have 1.5 million unemployed. Last month there were 507,000 young people between the ages of 15 and 24 unemployed. I have been here longer than most Members and I remember when the rate of unemployment was much lower than it is now. Experts at the Economic Council and in the universities told us that the problem was that people had not been trained to fill the available jobs. We have never made greater efforts to train people, Mr. Speaker. We have never spent more money on education. We have developed our high school system. We have vocational schools and community colleges. Our universities are training people in fields for which they think there will be employment opportunities. Over one-half a million of our young peole are unemployed. That is a disgrace, and I suggest that we will have a lost generation because they will eventually give up looking for jobs.

February 12, 1985
Supply
Not only must we reduce unemployment to a level comparable to those in countries such as Japan and Germany, but we must concentrate on those groups in our society which cannot find employment even when times are good and the unemployment rate is half of what it is now. I am talking about the handicapped people, hardly any of whom work. Many are working in sheltered work shops at much below the minimum wage. I am also talking about our native communities where 70 per cent to 80 per cent of the people are unemployed. I am talking about regions in Newfoundland where over 50 per cent of the people are unemployed.
Not only must we reduce the number of unemployed, we must offer hope to Canadians. We must make a special effort to find ways to bring meaningful work to those segments of our society which have difficulty finding employment even in the best of times.
The Government today is telling us the same thing we have heard from Liberal Governments over the years. It is doing what it can and the rest must be left to the private sector. I am saying that that is not good enough and the Government must do much more because it has the responsibility of ensuring that every Canadian who wants and is willing to work can work at meaningful jobs.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Hudon) has a question.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Just a comment, Mr. Speaker. We hear about the increasing number of businesses which are experiencing a great many problems, when they are not closing their operations outright.
It would be nice some day to hear about the increasing number of businesses which are contributing more and more to the rise in the GNP and which are doing fine. We hear only about the things which are going wrong. There are a number of things which are going well in our society and the private sector; there are a number of businesses which are experiencing rapid growth and will create the jobs Canada needs, as outlined in our policy.
My hon. colleague rightly said that there are a great many students who cannot find jobs in their particular field. In my previous occupation I have had to deal with a great number of young people who had been told that the labour market was soft and could not provide the necessary job opportunities, and that they would be at the mercy of the hiring individuals' whim. Would it not be advisable-and I put the question to my hon. colleague-to put in place a system whereby a young person would be confronted with the labour market during the course of his or her education, placing him or her in a position to make a difficult decision at the tender age of 18 instead of 27, thus sparing him or her 8 years of vainly seeking a first
job? That person might make this difficult decision and change his or her study and career orientation.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Hon. Member if he is suggesting that our educational system is wrong when people between the ages of 5 to 22 who go to school are finished with their education. I also agree with him if he is suggesting that in the future people will more likely be forced to change jobs.
I suggest to the Member from Quebec that he ought to be primarily concerned about what is happening in his province. The clothing and textile industry has been very important to the Province of Quebec in providing employment to many hundreds of thousands of people. Very often that industry is the only major employer in a city or town, and he should be concerned about the cut-backs in the clothing and textile industry which have made it unable to meet foreign competition.
I ask the Hon. Member whether it is not the responsibility of the Government to sit down with industry and labour to try to plan alternatives for those cities and towns where the major industry, such as the clothing and textile industry, is closing. Can that be left to the free enterprise system? I suggest to the Hon. Member that when a company closes down after many years, the plant and equipment have depreciated. The shareholders probably are not suffering, but those who suffer are the people who work in the plant, live in the town and have made their homes there. They are the ones without work. I ask the Hon. Member to think about that when considering the role of the private and public sectors.


Mr. Malone:: Mr. Speaker, it does not scare me as much that the Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) says what he says as that I think he believes what he says.
To follow his suggestion would set us on a treadmill that would crumble the pillars of our financial community. His prescription is to create jobs now, and he implies that this is the responsibility of the Government. Apart from the fact that Canada is nearly $200 billion in debt and that one out of every $3 is used purely to pay for the interest on our accumulated debt, the New Democratic Party and their Liberal Party friends introduced the National Energy Program. A spokesman for an oil company indicated in a western newspaper last weekend that that program shut down 300 jobs. Furthermore, the company re-established those jobs in another country. Those policies have not only eliminated jobs but they have created jobs in other countries.
Why did the NDP and the Liberals, through their National Energy Program, prevent two tar sands plants from being built? They should know that in 25 years a tar sands plant will create $108 billion of investment directly for the Province of Ontario and an additional $25 billion of direct investment for the Province of Quebec in order to acquire materials, iron and steel products and financing. Mr. Underhill came to this conclusion in a study he made on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce in Calgary.
February 12, 1985

The two opposition Parties talked about creating jobs now and said that the Government can do it. That would increase the debt, break the pillars of our economy, drive those sectors that were working into ruin and chase jobs out of the country. And they have the audacity to tell us that we should do something! We are taking action. We are going to rebuild the engine of the economy to get Canada working again. We will not do so by taking their approach, which obviously leads to debt and a crippling of the economy.
I want the Member for Winnipeg North to tell us why he chased all those jobs out of Canada when he supported the Liberals and the NDP?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) listened to my speech. 1 made it very clear that we are living in a mixed economy in which both the public and private sectors will have an important role to play in the future. I am sure I said that in the foreseeable future in our country, in the United States and in other countries of western Europe the private sector will provide more jobs than the public sector. The Member said that I said we believe everything should be done by the Government. Fie is dead wrong.
Let me say something about the tar sands plants. When the tar sands plants were being discussed and planned, we were in a period when the cost of energy, the world price of oil, was going up about 15 per cent a year. When the tar sands plants were being discussed-and they would have taken three or four years to complete-the price to produce a barrel of oil from the tar sands was being calculated as being in the neighbourhood of S60 to $70 a barrel. Since the world price of oil was supposed to go up about 15 per cent a year, by the time the tar sands oil was to come on the market, the world price would be $60 to $70 a barrel and tar sands oil would be competitive. I ask the Member, what has happened? Instead of the world price of oil going up, it has gone down. Oil costs somewhere between $27 or $28 a barrel.
Where would we be in Canada today if every tar sands plant that had been started was in production and producing oil at a cost of $70 a barrel, with the world price less than $30 a barrel? That is a question the Member and his Government should answer instead of continually criticizing the National Energy Program, which had many faults and we pointed them out at the time.


George Baker: I want to remind the Hon. Member from Alberta that he should know that since the Tories became the Government, there is no talk about tar sands any more, it is "off the coast of Newfoundland".


Arnold John Malone: You bet.


George Baker: I have a question for the Hon. Member. He has been here many years. He has watched Governments bring in programs and Governments change their minds half way through programs. The Minister of Employment and Immi-
Adjournment Motion
gration (Miss MacDonald) claims that she has the support of all Conservative Members of this House in charging all municipalities in Canada, if they want to have a student employment program, about 50 per cent of the total cost-25 per cent of wages, 25 per cent of benefits and 100 per cent of material costs. Since that is clearly unworkable and will not survive as a regulation, does the Hon. Member not think that the Minister will change that now or that she will change it in two weeks' time? Does he not believe that the Minister brought this measure knowing full well that it is not going to work and that she has to change it? Does the Hon. Member agree with that?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I do not know when the Minister will change her mind. I agree with the Hon. Member that she will have to change her mind.
We have a Government which has blind faith in what is called the free enterprise system, Mr. Speaker. The Government seems to believe that any job in the private sector is productive and worth-while and that every job in the public sector is somehow make-work and useless.
If you look at any city-and I will not talk about the rural areas because I do not know them as well as I know the cities in Canada-you will see that the infrastructure is running down: the sewer system, the water system, the mass transit system. All those things are not working as well as they did. They are not meeting the needs of the people because we are not investing the money to improve them or to keep them up to standard. The Government would have been much better off to have let the municipalities, all of which have long lists of necessary projects, be first in rather than last in on the Canada Works Program and the Summer Canada Program.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia)-Transport-Automobile emission controls; the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-Public Service-Auditor General's report- Job classifications, (b) Agreement inquiry; the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong)-Trust Companies-Pioneer Trust Company, (b) Protection of investors and depositors.
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
February 12, 1985

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Riis:
That, this House commends the Government of Manitoba for its positive policies of job creation which have produced the lowest unemployment level in Canada, and calls upon the Government to adopt a similar course of economic expansion rather than the discredited policies of tax increases and spending cuts which it has pursued to date and which are largely responsible for the latest unemployment statistics, which show an alarming increase of 167,000 unemployed between December 1984 and January 1985.
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to enter into debate this afternoon on the motion introduced by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). I have listened to the debates in this House today. Very often these kinds of debates are philosophical. I think it important that this House of Commons, the House of representatives of the men and women of Canada, should spend time discussing and debating and having a discourse on the various philosophies of how economic and social development can occur.
We see in the Province of Manitoba an alternative model of development, different from what exists in all the other provinces, and certainly different from the policies and programs of our present federal Government. It is a policy based on the notion and the philosophy that there is a legitimate role of government, that government has a role to play in the economic well-being of the country. It is not just a passive role, Mr. Speaker. Government has a responsibility to play an active role in determining the well-being of our economy.
Many of our friends across the way would disagree with that. Many believe that what government does is necessarily wasteful, unproductive and an impediment toward sound economic recovery. If only we can clear government out of the way and allow the private system to do its thing, so to speak, then economic prosperity would descend upon all of us and it will be fine, thank you very much.
I think that is a relatively simplistic notion. It is a reactive, regressive notion. It is a notion that has been tried in the past and shown not to work. We are living in a society today that is very centralized and interdependent, one that depends upon a well functioning, efficient and active government, but for a government to sit back and allow the forces of the marketplace to determine the economic well-being, I think is foolish and will not work.
When we hear from our Conservative friends-and we heard this message from our Liberal friends when they were in government-that private enterprise must be a major vehicle for economic recovery, I am dismayed. We look at our present economic situation and we know we have had free enterprise government in this country since it was founded. We know we have the so-called free enterprise governments in nine of our provinces, and yet we are dealing with record high levels of unemployment and economic hardship. These same people say,
"We have too much government and that is why we have these problems", but they are the ones who have been in power all this time. If there is any blame, surely the Tory and Liberal Governments have to be blamed because they have been in charge of our economy together with the captains of industry and finance who have made the economic decisions for us. Surely they are the ones we have to blame for record high levels of unemployment, for the deficits and for the economic mess in which we find ourselves.
Let there be no doubt about it; we are in an economic mess. Our country has a wealth of resources and a sparse population. We are young and much needs to be done. For us to end up with massive deficits and record high levels of unemployment surely leads any reasonable man or woman to say that something is wrong. Surely we have to blame the people who have been in charge of the economic destiny of the country, namely, large financial and industrial institutions as well as Liberal and Tory Governments. Their economic model has not worked and is not working.
In the Province of Manitoba there is another economic model which believes that people come first and disagrees with the comments which I heard just a few minutes ago made by the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) who was concerned about the crumbling of the major financial pillars of the country. We are concerned about the financial pillars, but our first concern is the human pillars of the country. We are concerned because there are men and women who do not have enough food to put on their tables every night. We are concerned because thre are men and women who line up every day waiting for a bowl of soup or a sandwich, and that is their only sustenance. We are concerned about the pillar of basic human decency-people having the right to food and a secure roof over their heads. This is why the Government of Manitoba has put people first. If it means a deficit, unfortunately it means a deficit. However, it would rather have a deficit than large numbers of people declaring personal bankruptcy or large numbers of people going without a decent meal. I suppose it is a difference in priorities. There is no doubt, from the comments of Conservative speakers, that their priority is the financial pillar of the country. Our priority is the human pillar, as I said. We would rather have a deficit than see people starve. That is our priority, and that is the priority of the Government of Manitoba.
It is important to have alternatives, living as we do in a day and age of very rapid economic and social changes. I would be the first to admit that no one has a blueprint, no one has all the solutions. We are dealing with economic and social situations with which societies in the past have not had to deal. We are dealing with a technology which is rapidly expanding and wiping out jobs all over the place. Perhaps this means that the traditional notion of work and life's goals have to change. The traditional lifestyle of working five days a week for 30 or 40 years in pursuit of a career, retiring with a gold watch and in many cases dying of a heart attack after retirement, the traditional lifestyle which sustained our parents, grandparents
February 12, 1985

and great-grandparents, was important in the development of the country. Perhaps much of it is no longer applicable, given the newer technologies and the types of changes that are being introduced in society. The whole notion of work and how men and women acquire income will have to be changed as we go into the 21st century.
New problems face governments and the men and women who represent their fellow citizens. There are difficult decisions to be made. There is no doubt that we are in a crisis, that there are tremendously large deficit and that the cost of servicing them are extremely high. While recognizing that, 1 wish members of the Conservative Party would also recognize the tremendous difficulties faced by ordinary men and women in their lives. I wish they would also show the same concern about starvation and malnutrition in this country as they show about deficits and the cost of servicing them. Surely honourable men and women would place people before deficits and financial statements in their list of priorities. I expect members of the Conservative Party to place to welfare of their fellow citizens before deficits, the largeness of them and the cost of servicing them.
Let me return to the point I was trying to make. There are no easy solutions. There are no blueprints, so to speak. All we know is the general directions in which society must go in order for us to begin to find some of the possible solutions to the economic, social and cultural problems we face in this day and age. One of the directions is surely one of co-operation. The different sectors in society-business, labour and government-must learn how to co-opperate. The days of confrontation must be over. There has to be give and take. This means that government is involved as an active partner, not a passive one. Many Conservative colleagues would attempt to suggest that government's role is to get the heck out of there and leave it up to the private sector. That type of thinking is old thinking and will not help us to attain the solutions we need. We must accept the fact that government has a role to play.


Arnold John Malone: Why?


Simon Leendert de Jong: I hear the Hon. Member for Crowfoot. It is sad when men and women who put themselves forward to govern do not even know why they should govern. Indeed I find it sad. If they do not know why they should be governing, they should get out of there and let people govern who know why they should be governing. If the Hon. Member for Crowfoot does not have the role of government in his head yet, I am afraid we are in a sadder situation than I previously thought. Maybe that is the reason the Hon. Member is not in Cabinet. I hope at least the cabinet Ministers know why they are governing and the role which government has to play.
There is no denying that in this day and age, in this very complex period in the history of the human race, government has an essential function to play. If the Hon. Member for Crowfoot and some of his colleagues do not understand that, indeed it is a sad day.
I could go on enumerating the many reasons we need government. I should like to give one simple example which is
Supply
occurring back home with Pioneer Trust. Some of our Conservative colleagues believe that government should not be involved, that it should get out of it, that it should not even regulate trust industries. If that were to occur, we would see bandits in the field and people losing their deposits. People in Regina right now are losing their deposits and life savings, retired businessmen and farmers who sold their land and do not have any pensions but have $100,000 or $120,000 in Pioneer Trust. All at once they are discovering that half of their life savings have been wiped away because of the great engines of free enterprise.


David Orlikow: They think the Government shouldn't do anything.


Simon Leendert de Jong: On top of that, they believe that the Government should not do anything. These people are really crazy. It is scary and frightening, though it is understandable in some ways. When a society goes through very rapid change as we have over the past few decades, a reaction sets in. People become afraid of change. They seek some stability. They seek a way to return to the way things were before. We find attempts to return to the times of Doris Day, Dwight D. Eisenhower and apple pie. Just wishing that to happen will not make it happen. In fact, it is quite impossible to turn back the clock.
As these Hon. Members attempt to grapple with contemporary problems, I hope they realize that returning to the simple days of the 1940s and 1950s will not happen. I hope they will smarten up and begin to realize that they are living in the contemporary world, and I hope that they will begin to offer some contemporary solutions and introduce some contemporary thinking.
I am sure that it will take a while for that to happen to the Hon. Member for Crowfoot and to some of his colleagues. After all, he comes from dinosaur country, and the ghosts of the dinosaurs still wander about those lonely and bleak plains. We can understand that. However, I certainly hope that other Members, and particularly cabinet Ministers, will begin to realize why they are in Government. I hope they will begin to realize what their function is and to know the job they are supposed to do.
To return to the point I was making earlier, for us to begin to develop and evolve solutions to these contemporary problems, we need a co-operative model. We need co-operation between business, labour and government. We need to understand the important role that government also must play in the arrangement of things. We have to understand and appreciate as well the role that labour must play. We also have to appreciate the role that capital and business must play. However, we have seen that the new right-wing Tory solution is that Government should decrease its function, that labour should reduce its demands and its wages, and that-


An Hon. Member:: Right on.

February 12, 1985
Supply


Simon Leendert de Jong: An Hon. Member said, right on. The Tory solution means that we should give greater benefits to the private sector and then somehow or other development and jobs will appear.
I am reminded of a statement made by the Alberta Minister of Employment who said at the beginning of the summer that unemployment was good because it kept wages down and it kept the workers more productive. It kept the workers frightened of losing their jobs and so they were less likely to make new demands.
In these hard economic times, we see that working people are supposed to lower their expectations. We find that people on unemployment insurance, pensioners or people on welfare are to expect less, that the people who are the captains of industry and finance are supposed to get more wealth, and that this in turn will somehow generate jobs.
Government members never talk about the responsibilities of capital. Has the Government ever asked the investment industry in the country to keep its money in Canada? No. The Hon. Member for Crowfoot criticized the National Energy Program. I as well criticized the National Energy Program and I too voted against it, though I suspect for different reasons from those of the Hon. Member for Crowfoot. I remember reading in the financial pages of The Globe and Mail that the oil industry in the country had a pretty good year last year. In fact, it had one of its record profit years. Companies like Exxon in the United States were not having all that great a year, but the oil companies in Canada were having a good year.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Up 50 per cent.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Up 50 per cent. That is not bad. Is that money staying in this country?


Arnold John Malone: Yes.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Now we hear the Hon. Member for Crowfoot saying, yes. A few moments ago, he said that the National Energy Program was driving investment out of the country. Now he is saying that those profits are staying in the country. I would suggest that a great many of those profits are leaving this country.
International capital has no loyalty to any particular country. International capital is not loyal to this country even though its profits are made from the resources of this country. Much of that money will be laundered through dummy companies in the Bahamas so taxes will not be paid on it, and then it will get reinvested in other places. Hon. Members says that that is just smart accountaing practices. Of course, if one is in charge of an oil company, those are smart accounting practices. However, if Hon. Members suggest that smart accounting practices will create jobs for Canadian men and women, they are wrong. Indeed, they have their heads in the sand. Indeed, their prescription for the solution to the problems we are facing will create more disaster. Therefore, I believe we have put forward a good motion, a motion that lauds a
provincial Government that is attempting to develop a different program that offers different solutions, solutions based on the notion that people come first.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments?


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are somewhat surprised that I would rise after that speech. However, I have noted the logic of the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong). He is a person who would take the view that all ducks are good swimmers, Simon is a good swimmer and therefore Simon is a duck.
I listened to the Hon. Member's convoluted statement consisting of things that he threw up in the air that landed we know not where and that he claimed to be somehow logical, factual. Therefore, on the basis of what he has said, Canada should somehow accept that as a legitimate speech to be made in the House of commons. I could tell the Hon. Member that it was a testament as to why there are only about 30 members of the New Democratic Party.
The Hon. Member went on to say that we said that we did not need government after I had questioned him as to whether or not government could be as efficient in creating jobs as the private sector. He took that to mean that we felt that governments were bad. Surely he knows that the federal Government of Canada is Progressive Conservative and that six provincial Government are Progressive Conservative. Obviously it is not Party policy to believe that Government is no good. We are here; he is not.
The Hon. Member said that the new energy program must be good because the oil industry is expanding and growing. Of course it is growing. It is growing precisely because there is a Progressive Conservative Government in Canada. It was in the four previous years that the energy industry was chased into Venezuela, the United States, Australia and New Zealand, and not only the industry for the western sedimentary basin but for the industrial sector in Canada as well. Those jobs were chased out of Canada along with billions of dollars of investment capital.
The Hon. Member simply cannot say that the industry is making a comeback. I just came back from a meeting with IPAC. They are here today and investing today because there is an expectation of change in the direction of policy. Every time oil companies begin to drill new wells, there is a new sense of activity being felt. The Hon. Member for Regina East ought to know that because his province feels the impact when the oil industry begins to develop and grow.
When the Hon. Member says that the oil industry is up 50 per cent, he deludes himself. He knows very well that it is up 50 per cent following four of the most disastrous years in its history. He also knows that it is up 50 per cent because the industry believes that there will be a turnaround. I would ask him how he could possibly stand there and shout out these so-called facts and figures, which he knows do not really represent reality or truth, to try to make people believe that he is giving suggestions as to how Canada can get back to a solid
February 12, 1985

bottom line economically and be competitive in the international market.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has failed to convince me, and I believe many others as well, that his examples for development in the oil industry are what will solve our problems. I would suggest that part of the major reason there has been a downturn in the oil industry is that the price of oil has fallen on the world market. When he suggests-


Arnold John Malone: Is it up or down?


Simon Leendert de Jong: You are sitting down and I am standing up, so keep it easy.
We hear the Hon. Member for Crowfoot suggest that the decline in the oil industry is because of the National Energy Program, and that with a Conservative Government that program will be scrapped and the oil giants will have increased confidence. "Increased confidence" is another key slogan. Listening to the Tories reminds me of the Moonies. They have key phrases which get them all excited. Certain buttons get pushed. It is like mind training, and one of the key phrases is "increased confidence". It is as though they had jars of increased confidence which they hand out and sniff. They say that because a Tory Government was elected, increased confidence is occurring and money will be reinvested in oil development.
I would suggest that if the price of oil on the international market decreases, we will not have the increased confidence which will fuel activity in the oil industry. The only way to get increased activity in the oil industry is for the Government to give it further tax breaks and incentives until it makes sense for the oil companies to continue the economic activity.
It will be interesting to see how the Tory Government changes the National Energy Program. I would suggest that many of the oil companies, despite the rhetoric, have been able to live with it and have come to like it. I believe we will see opposition from oil industry people to the changes which will be made to the National Energy Program. Then we will see the Hon. Member for Crowfoot eating crow.
So much of the rhetoric has been to blame all the economic ills in western Canada on the National Energy Program. Once this excuse disappears, what excuse will be left? At some stage Tories will have to look at themselves and begin to accept some responsibility for what is happening, rather than pulling out a scapegoat everytime they want to make a boisterous speech which is full of sound and fury.


Mr. Crosby:: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question for the Hon. Member. I listened intently to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) who supported the motion which was presented by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shus-wap (Mr. Riis). There was a Manitoban and a British Columbian who supported the motion, and now we have a Member from Saskatchewan adding his glorification to the motion.
Supply
He said that it was a "good motion" and one which "lauded a provincial Government", but he forgot to address himself to the pith and substance of it, which commends the Government of Manitoba for its policies. Three westerners have lauded a motion which inferentially condemns every other province of Canada and the people of those provinces.
I would point out to the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) that in 1983-84 the Province of Nova Scotia had the highest rate of growth in Canada. That is quite an accomplishment for a small, disadvantaged province like Nova Scotia. The Government, the private sector and mainly the people of Nova Scotia caused that economy to grow. I think the people of Nova Scotia will resent the western clique in the New Democratic Party who are inferentially condemning the efforts of the people of Nova Scotia by way of lauding the Province of Manitoba for its policies. I think the same could be said of every province of Canada which has laboured diligently on behalf of its people to establish better economic conditions. It is a well known fact that if we praise one we can be guilty of condemning others. That is exactly what the NDP has done with this motion. I would like the Hon. Member for Regina East to answer that. What has he got to say that is good about the Province of Nova Scotia and the other provinces of Canada?
I would like to add one comment before he answers that question. I want him to know that the policies which gave rise to the economic superiority of Manitoba were policies established by Duff Roblin when he was Premier. He took the hard decision to establish hydro and other resources in that province, which fueled the growth in the Province of Manitoba. It has little, if anything, to do with the current Government of the Province of Manitoba.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear the Hon. Member, when talking about his home Province of Nova Scotia, mention that one of the important players was government. I salute him for being civilized and enlightened enough to recognize that government has a role to play. The Hon. Member has been here for some time and I think he does recognize that government has a role to play.
He also recognized that it was the Government of Mr. Roblin which helped to develop hydro and other resources in the Province of Manitoba. Again, he recognized that Government had a role to play. It was a Tory Government, and it knew it had to play an activist role, otherwise those resources would not have been developed. What frightens me is that other Members believe that Mr. Roblin was wrong, that the Government of Nova Scotia in helping to develop jobs is wrong, and that governments should not have a role to play. They believe that if we left private enterprise alone, it would solve all our problems, develop hydro, create jobs and so on. It is that simplistic notion that scares the daylights out of me.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, some very positive developments are taking place in the economy

February 12, 1985
Supply
and our Government, although the motion before the House today seems to ignore entirely what has been happening during the last few months. I would like to point out, for instance, that during the third quarter, our economic growth has been remarkable, as much as 7.6 per cent. Mortgage rates have dropped at least 2 per cent since we took up our mandate, and this only since September 4. Canada's trade surplus is at a record high. Last year, inflation was at its lowest level since 1971, which will improve our competitive position abroad.
When we were brought to power on September 4, Canadians were clearly saying they wanted a fresh start. They had looked at past measures and realized that they had not been terribly effective. They saw there was too much confrontation between administrations, too much confrontation between the private and the public sector, too much confrontation between the Federal Government and the provinces. Canadians realized it was time the Government was involved in developing the answers, but involved in a sensible way instead of compounding the problem as had been the case before.
The message on September 4, Mr. Speaker, was loud and clear. Our immediate response was the strategy for economic renewal announced last November.
Canadians must, however, understand that the Government cannot manage this country's economy alone, controlling every little detail. That is not its mandate, Mr. Speaker. Its mandate is to administer the country in such a way that the economy progresses, but without undue intervention.
The Government does not dominate the economy, Mr. Speaker. It is part of the economy, one element of a living organism. It is a set of institutions and bodies that are involved in the production and consumer activities we call economic life.
Every healthy organism depends on the equilibrium of its components. If one of these components starts to grow excessively, the excessive demands it makes will weaken the organism. The Government's role is to maintain a correct balance in the economy between public and private interests. It must manage its own affairs to the best of its ability. It must provide for proper planning and avoid being forced into an excessively high deficit like the one we have today. It should also provide the economy with a general framework of policies, programs and regulations that will promote economic growth and create as much employment as possible. That is why we were elected.
To illustrate the importance of this notion of equilibrium, let us take inflation as an example. For many years this has been the economy's number one problem. Although Canadians have made tremendous progress in controlling inflation, the federal Government's structural and financial policies did not play the role they should have played in this struggle. In some cases, they made the fight against inflation even more difficult. One of the basic differences in what the Mulroney Government is doing is its more balanced approach to economic policy, an approach in which monetary, financial and structural policies are all oriented in the same direction. The main goal of this
approach will be to sustain non-inflationary growth and to create jobs by bringing interest rates down as far as possible. This approach demands that Parliament reduce financial imbalances and correct a number of structural problems. That is the direction we started to take following last November's economic message, and it will guide our decisions in the future.
Last November, the theme was how to control and manage an ever-increasing deficit. We must continue to do so and do it carefully and sensibly. The nation cannot go on mortgaging its future and hope to sustain economic growth, as was the case before September 4, Mr. Speaker, which was what Canadians understood when they gave us a clear mandate.
The measures we have already taken, namely, the expenditure cuts and other initiatives announced in the economic message, should start having a positive effect on the deficit in the next fiscal year.
There are those who claim that wanting to manage the national debt is to be insensitive to people's needs. That is not true, Mr. Speaker. Canadians realize that only by putting our finances in order will we be able to avoid overwhelming problems for the people of Canada, problems that would bring about a rise in interest rates, loss of jobs and a drop in investment. The measures we have already taken are those that we think will benefit the majority of Canadians. The measures we will take in future will meet the same criterion, and that is this Government's primary concern.
The deficit is not the only obstacle, Mr. Speaker. We will also have to restructure Government policies, regulations and economic programs to allow the creative energies of Canadians to be exercised freely. We must give individuals and firms in the private sector enough room to manoeuvre and make it possible for them to use their creativity and talents as productively and profitably as possible for the economy of this country. That is the challenge for 1985. That is why we have started one of the most thorough public policy reviews Canada has ever known. Our goal is a complete restructuring of Government policy over the next few years that will make our economy productive and, especially, make it more competitive.
Productive businesses must grow and create jobs, and make rational long-term plans. We have experienced in Canada a succession of arbitrary changes that created uncertainty and undermined confidence, both at home and abroad, especially where our small businesses are concerned. It is obvious that the recent experience has been harmful. Yet the status quo is no more acceptable. We are introducing changes, but in a consistent, reasoned way, and this is why this Government is involved in so much consultation.
There are many areas where action is needed. For instance, our new competition policy scheme would promote confidence. Government legislation has to be updated so that the production, distribution and treatment of information and computerization may contribute to our economic growth to a greater extent. Other statutes and regulations that affect the operation of businesses in Canada must also be streamlined, and above all modernized, Mr. Speaker. As we know, we have statutes that should have been amended long ago, but the previous
February 12, 1985

Government did not attend to that. We also support a larger degree of flexibility and productivity in our economy, and the adaptation to modern technology.
Mr. Speaker, no one can contribute more to this renewal and to the providing of new opportunities than small businesses. While they have always been neglected, for a number of years already they have been creating most jobs in Canada. Not only that, they have the greatest job creation potential in new fields. If we really want to entrust our economic growth to the private sector, Mr. Speaker, we must ensure that the free enterprise spirit will be rewarded through and with the entrepreneur. The Government must do all it can to help the entrepreneur, and above all to promote entrepreneurship.
We have indicated that the Government could lead the way. It can create a favourable climate. Moreover, whatever measures the Government can take, cost nothing in many cases or almost nothing to the Public Treasury, but we should not delude ourselves about the implications of that process. We have set ourselves the task of establishing in the economy a better balance between the public and the private sectors. Within the new framework we are putting in place, Canadians will have to expect less from governments and more from the private sector.
One of the key areas in which the private sector can meet the challenge is that of investments. An increase in productive investments would benefit all segments of the economy. We must remember, Mr. Speaker, that investments result directly in job creation and production growth. Just as important, Mr. Speaker, investment decisions will have to be taken to cope with rapid technological changes and an evolving world market. We should support any future improvement in productivity and above all in competition, mainly in the private sector.
Canada does not hold its rightful place among industrialized nations. If we are to be truly competitive at the world level, if we are to really develop new markets, we have to go into research and development. An increased level of research and development requires a major effort for which the Government alone should not be relied upon. Canadian businesses must have the will to contribute to that effort.
Training and retraining are also essential ingredients of our economic growth. They do make it a lot easier for the business community to hire the qualified staff it needs to be competitive. Equally important, they help people be more flexible when facing an ever-changing market place or a new and different occupation. That has to be our national priority. Time has come for the private sector to wonder how it might play a more significant role so that training and upgrading will be tailored to its real needs.
Mr. Speaker, access to export markets is another major obstacle which stands between the business community and success. It is a major challenge as well, and if we manage to live up to it we will be able to create many jobs. However, we must be prepared to take the odd chance and be more dynamic on foreign markets, yet remain convinced that we can indeed be competitive. And the only way to be more competititive, Mr. Speaker, is to boost our productivity and modernize our
Supply
facilities. Mr. Speaker, none of that is possible unless we change our attitude and our work methods. It simply cannot be achieved overnight. Since September 4, the Opposition keeps repeating nothing has been done, nothing has been done. They were in office for twenty years. Earlier this afternoon, 1 heard the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) talk about administrative decisions taken by the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board, but he did not bother to say that the CIRB management was appointed by the Liberals, not by us, not by this Government. If the administrative decisions of the CIRB are not coming out fast enough for the Liberals, they should talk to the management, they put them there. There is no way they can be critical about what is going on right now. Besides, the Hon. Member ought to know that this board is not answerable to the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion.
When we were elected last fall, Mr. Speaker, we examined the economic outlook and realized that it was not very promising. So we decided to draft an economic development plan, a plan to improve the economic outlook and to set up new structures more conducive to the expansion of the private sector. What we had in mind was to make significant progress in key sectors such as trade, research, development and investment. We know that by taking action in all these areas, we shall finally be able to have a healthy economy. That is what Canadians have been hoping for since September 4.
International figures are already showing that Canada has now gone ahead of a few other industrialized countries as far as industrial competition and standard of living are concerned.
The figures have been favourable since September 4 and the economic achievements I have just mentioned are encouraging. They should restore confidence and raise the level of expectations in Canada. However, we should not become too confident. We cannot forget that everything is not perfect in our country. Our economy is still held back by excessively high real interest rates and by progress made in the United States. Too much of our recent economic growth is the result of our enormous trade surplus, and business investment remains weak. The situation of our resource industries is still very precarious. Finally, our enormous annual deficit and increasing national debt threaten our prospects for lasting economic development and job creation.
Mr. Speaker, this brief examination of the recent ups and downs of our economic performance reminds us that we must continue to make level-headed and realistic judgments about our performance and economic prospects. It remains that we can do much more and that we are progressing daily. Canada still has unlimited opportunities, and while the Opposition may believe that there is nothing to do, Mr. Speaker, there is, in fact, much to do and this Government is committed to do it.
The business community still shows great confidence in the Government elected on September 4 and in the commitment necessary for economic renewal. That is what some favourable

February 12, 1985
Supply
economic indicators are telling us. It is also what small businesses are saying. That is why foreign investors are more interested in Canada than before. As these new investments create job opportunities, Canadians will become less concerned about the future of their jobs, their family and their country. They will tend to consume more. This is why confidence is so important. I believe that we have every reason to be confident and optimistic. Obviously, if any country in the world has every chance to succeed, it is Canada. We should believe in the initiatives taken by the Government and support them. With the assistance of the private sector, private business and small businesses, with a special emphasis on entrepreneurship, and in spite of the motion of the New Democratic Party today, this is what we must do.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member referred to the problems that increased interested rates would cause. If it is a choice between increasing rates or a softening of the Canadian dollar, would he go along with his Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in saying he would prefer the lower dollar?


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Prime Minister have already made their views known in this regard and outlined exactly what will be the policy of this Government.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member on a very fine address. There is a point I have been wanting to clear up and I have not been able to be recognized until now. A number of speakers today, particularly in the opposition Parties, have been comparing the number of unemployed in the fall and winter with those in the spring and summer. We all know unemployment increases in the fall and winter in normal years. It is a normal procedure. To compare the number of jobs in the fall and winter with those in the spring and summer is like comparing apples with horses. There is just no comparison, and it creates the wrong impression entirely.
Would the Hon. Member agree that it is unfair to make this kind of comparison? It gives a false picture entirely, and I think all of us want to be accurate when we present a picture to the people of Canada.


Pierre H. Vincent: It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that my honourable colleague is quite right. It is time to stop misleading the Canadian people into believing just about anything, as was done in the past. We know what Canada's economic conditions are and we know that certain things happen at the same time each year. Certain things occur in the fall, and others in the spring or in the summer. We know that. What the Hon. Member says is quite true. The Opposition always tries to show that
it is not the same, that it is different and that it was always better before. If such was the case, Mr. Speaker, I wonder why they are still there. I am in complete agreement with my hon. colleague.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with some interest to the debate this afternoon, and this is once again an opportunity for this House to discuss what is without question one of the most important and significant issues facing Canadians. That is why I would like to begin my remarks with a small plea to Members on both sides of the House to come at this issue without illusion, mythology or theology. We should try to demonstrate to the Canadian people that we are both learning from history and preparing for the future based on reality, not on fantasy.
I listened to the speech made by the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent). He had some interesting prepared comments and statistics about what has happened and what has not happened. I want to address my remarks to him as a new Member and other new Members and say that I think it would be a mistake if we were simply to pretend nothing good happened in the past and all that is happening now is perfect. That is simply not the case.
I was intrigued by his comments about interest rates. Let us be honest, the interest rate policy is in large part dictated by what happens in money markets in the United States. The U.S. is the largest financial market in the world. It determines the international flow of money. It determines the level of interest rates which all countries pay. Therefore, any Canadian Government of whatever stripe is always forced into the position of having at least to respond and be sensitive to that fact. We are not an island unto ourselves.


Nelson Andrew Riis: What about Austria?


Lloyd Axworthy: It is not possible for us to isolate ourselves from a country with which we share a 5,000 kilometre border, a country with which we conduct 70 per cent of our trade. Large parts of our commercial exchange are affected by what happens in the U.S. Don't kid yourselves by saying that somehow it is going to change simply because you are here. That is not the key. The question is what kind of response is to be made.
The Hon. Member and others have talked about how to control inflation. We were the ones who controlled inflation. It did not happen on September 4. The inflation rate was down to 4 per cent before then and went down to 3.5 per cent after then. It had nothing to do with the election. We had to take very tough and strong measures, some of which were very unpleasant, to bring the inflation rate down. I hope the Conservative Government will accept the responsibility of keeping it that way. Let us not forget history. Let us not be like some Soviet revisionist historian and wipe out the past. There is an old cliche which says that those who will not learn from the past are bound to repeat it. We must realize that
February 12, 1985

inflation is always a problem. We have to deal with the matter but we cannot deal with it through some theological answer.
I was interested to hear the Hon. Member talk about the way in which the Government is freeing up the forces of private enterprise and allowing more competition. Which Government brought in the major policy of deregulation? It was not the Conservative Government. A year ago the Liberal Government deregulated the airline industry and provided more competition. Conservative back-benchers had better ask some tough questions about the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) because he is stopping the program. He is putting the brakes on it. He is falling back into the trap of holding on to what the old vested interests had to say. Therefore, the airline industry is now getting a different set of signals. It was not the Conservatives who argued for the removal of excess regulations. It was the Liberal Government that did that.
That is an important truth, because the negotiations which we had with the provinces on deregulating the trucking industry have now been held up for six months. The agreement was on the table last September. The Conservative Government has stopped that agreement from going ahead. That agreement had been arrived at by all the nice words that Conservatives love to use: consultation, discussion, co-operation, and federal-provincial agreements. That had all been done. It was on the table and had been agreed upon. The Conservative Government stopped it. If Conservative Members are really concerned about that, they should do something about it. They should ask members of the Ministry why they are being trapped by functionaires and the old vested interests. The whole move to deregulation has been put on hold in the transportation industry. That is a very serious consequence because we were making progress. Without even examining the issue, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) said that they were not going to touch Air Canada. That issue was to have been discussed by way of public hearing in a House of Commons Transport Committee. The new Prime Minister of Canada put the stop to that. Why has the Prime Minister stopped that particular intervention?
My point is that government Members should not delude themselves.


John Kenneth Gormley: We are not.


Lloyd Axworthy: Oh yes you are. I have listened to what you have said. There is a rank air of illusion in this Chamber every time a Conservative back-bencher rises to his feet with prepared notes from the Department of Finance.


An Hon. Member:: You were not here.


Lloyd Axworthy: I don't see any economic Ministers here either. They are so concerned about job creation that they have not found time to come to the Chamber for this very important debate.
Supply


John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is it acceptable in debate for the Hon. Member to refer to the absence from the House of certain Members?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It has already been said by different Speakers, as the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) knows, that it is not acceptable for a Member to comment on the presence or absence of other Members in the House.


Royce Herbert Frith: This must have been asked by a Tory of a Tory.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in response to the point of order, it is obvious from observing who is in the Chamber at the present time that the Minister is not exactly committed to coming to grips with the issues which are being debated by Members of Parliament.
This is an important resolution because it does point to a very important model. I would like to talk about how growth can be created in the country. This is probably the most important issue that we face. What is the role of Government in that particular exercise? How do we begin to develop the intervention and activity which will help create growth in the private and public sectors?


John Kenneth Gormley: Not by spending money like you did.


Lloyd Axworthy: I am going to answer that. It is clear how his comment that the Hon. Member does not know what he is talking about. I am here to educate him, and I am quite happy to do that. That is what the debate is for.


John Kenneth Gormley: I'm not the one who spent millions, Lloyd.


Lloyd Axworthy: I will come to that. In 1980, the Province of Manitoba had been ravaged by the Sterling Lyon Government. We had the highest rate of unemployment and the lowest rate of growth. Because of the lack of provincial Government activity in that province, we had the lowest rate of growth in Canada. There was nothing going on. There was no capital construction, no investment in the schools, and no private investment going on. That was the reality of Manitoba in 1980. By 1984, we had the highest rate of growth in Canada and one of the lowest rates of unemployment. Something happened in those four years which created a difference. What happened was a prime example of full co-operation between the federal Government, the provincial Government, municipal Governments and the private sector. That is where the resolution goes wrong. It only points to one level of partnership. The fact is that there was a partnership of all the major sectors in that economy. There was a different kind of federal involvement that went back to the grass-roots at the community level to help make policy and provide federal investment. What was important about the Manitoba experiment is that it was not simply a transfer of funds. It was a direct active involvement in regional economic development.
I will give one example. The federal Government initiated the core area initiative because we recognized that one of the best ways to generate growth in that province was through the

February 12, 1985
Supply
City of Winnipeg, which represents the major economic engine in that province. The centre part of the city had been allowed to deteriorate. There was no investment going on and it was not an attractive area to which to bring private sector involvement. We proposed to the provincial and municipal Governments that we would each put up one-third of the funds to invest in incentives for private business, to provide for community redevelopment, and to provide for a major restructuring of the downtown area. Three levels of Government co-operated. We managed together. We sat down on a monthly basis with the Mayor of the City of Winnipeg, the provincial Minister and the regional Minister and talked about how we could join efforts to create development for the City of Winnipeg.
We are seeing the results now. Close to 50 new small businesses have started up in one warehouse district. This is not government intervention. They are new small businesses in the service sector, the manufacturing area, and the retail area. The Member for the Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gorm-ley) should go and look at that because an entire section of the city has been turned around. Private business, using the incentive grants, is sponsoring that.
We have also provided for close to 3,000 units of housing being either built or rehabilitated. That was the major source of private construction activity in that city. The Tories do not understand that kind of thing, but the private sector of Manitoba understands it because, for the first time, it was given the incentive to go back to work.
A third area of co-operation between the federal, provincial and municipal Governments was the provision of a major incentive for development in the north of Portage la Prairie. We put a package together to provide for capital infrastructure, a new investment, and then used that to attract major development into that area. The result has been that a major developer has announced that he will go into the northern part of Portage la Prairie to create 200,000 square feet of new commercial space. There are presently negotiations going on for another 300 or 400 units of needed rental housing.
That is co-operation as it should really happen. Government should not be afraid to work with the private sector or the provincial or municipal governments. They should work together to create growth.
The result in that area was that we were able to provide several thousand new jobs. Furthermore, not only was the actual core area initiative itself important, each level of Government could use it as a framework for development and be in a position to provide further investment to enhance and attract further activity.
Members have heard us in opposition complain mightily about the cancellation of a National Research Council Centre which was to be part of that downtown development program in Winnipeg. We complained about it because it was a way the federal Government could effectively help the Province of Manitoba acquire new capacity in high-tech research and development. The side benefit of that is that it was designed to
attract a number of new high-tech manufacturing industries to the City of Winnipeg.
There were four major companies that were prepared to locate in Winnipeg and establish technology-oriented activities. They have now put their plans on hold because the federal Government cancelled the project. That is why it is important that the Government at the federal level recognize that it has an important and positive impact as an investor in communities, working in conjunction with other levels of government.
That is why we strongly object to the present plans of the Minister of Regional and Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) simply to transfer the funding. This means that the federal Government is denying itself the ability to provide further federal investment of this kind. It is removing itself from the planning and development activities in that region. It no longer has the capacity to determine how federal investments, whether in research or scientific development, capital structure or airports, are able to add to a growth business.
Let me give another example from Manitoba of tri-level co-operation. It was the signing of a major transportation agreement. After sitting down with the provincial Governments and discussing what would be the primary form of economic development, it was recognized that the Province of Manitoba was a major centre of transportation. Many of the facilities had been allowed to deteriorate over the years. We signed an agreement amounting to over $200 million to restore totally the Port of Churchill, repair the railway lines, and bring to Winnipeg for the first time the development, research and manufacturing of light grain cars that would be utilized in the entire grain network in western Canada as well as on the Churchill line. The agreement also included the expansion of the airport system and research and development.
I suggest to Hon. Members, who think they know so much, that this was done in conjunction with the private sector: thirty of the top business people in Winnipeg, many of whom were Conservative bagmen, financiers and campaign managers-I can name them-and I know the Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker) knows who I am talking about. They told me that they wanted to provide new investment at the University of Manitoba in management studies because they believed that that is the way of the future. They asked if the federal Government would help them. We worked with associates of that faculty and designed a management study program, transportation research centre because we recognized that new research was the way of the future. That was done with the province, the private sector and the universities, with the federal Government involving itself directly in economic development at the local level while using its investment funds to provide opportunities for new training, new research and new products.
That is an important model to be followed. It is very important that the Government not get itself so wrapped up in its theology that government should not play such a role that it withdraws from those potential investment opportunities to help the regions of Canada grow.
February 12, 1985


An Hon. Member:: What about the people who said no? They said no to you.


Lloyd Axworthy: Oh no, they didn't.


An Hon. Member:: You are still in a dream.


Lloyd Axworthy: I am talking about reality. I am talking about hard jobs. I am also talking about a reality in which there are a lot of people in Manitoba saying, "My God, I wish the other guys were back".


John Kenneth Gormley: Name one, Lloyd.


Lloyd Axworthy: I presented a petition in the House which contained 1,000 names of people who are objecting to the activity of the Government of Canada selling the National Research Council Centre. That was done in one weekend. We do not need much more help than that. There are thousands more who believe the same thing.
The Conservative Government never came to Manitoba to say that it will cancel the National Research Council Centre or the research grants. It was campaigning on a lie. The Conservatives did not say that they were going to cut back on those kinds of federal investments. They did not have a mandate to do it, and that is why Canadians have a serious mistrust of the Government. They can no longer believe the Government.
Not only did it not have a mandate to change that, it is now betraying that trust and losing the opportunities to create in Manitoba the high level technology job development that we began three years ago.
This is where the NDP resolution is wrong. The NDP should not only be taking credit for the Manitoba Government. While important and positive advances have been made in Manitoba, it has happened because there were several players and several partners. For all the talk we have heard from federal Conservative Members and Ministers about cooperation, consultation, negotiation and agreement, the NDP should look at the model of Manitoba to see how it works and how it turned that province around. Manitoba had the lowest rate of growth and one of the highest unemployment rates, but now it has a high rate of growth and it had some opportunities until the present Government began ripping those agreements apart and not taking its activities there.
The people of Manitoba are asking what happened to that co-operation and openness with respect to $72 million of equalization payments. Where is the co-operation when every level of government in that province and the private sector have asked for the restoration of that national research centre? Where is the co-operation with respect to the investment in such things as new training facilities in new community colleges?
The Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres said that it is important to train people. Our Government put $1 billion into the training program in 1982. The Conservatives are not the first to think of this. Part of the $1 billion that we put into that
Supply
program was designed to provide direct transfers to the community colleges run by the provinces and to the private sector to develop new training facilities.
Today, there is no longer any money for that skills growth fund. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) has not contributed any money to provide for the new CAD-CAM centres and high-tech development centres. The ability to give assistance to provincial governments, native bands, women's groups and community corporations in order to develop new training facilities has been cut off.
The Government says that it believes in the investment in our human resources. I say to the Government, invest in them. Why did it cut the program off and stop funding the skills growth fund which is designed to help those provinces and expand the community colleges in every province in the country?
I believe there are lessons to be learned from the Manitoba example. They are lessons on co-operation and on how to work with the province to provide economic development. In order to accomplish this, it is necessary to have a federal Government that wants to participate as a partner and wants to invest.
Therefore, I would like to move an amendment to the motion, seconded by the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith): The amended motion would read:
That this House commends the Government of Manitoba and the former Liberal Government for their positive policies of job creation which have produced the lowest unemployment level in Canada, and calls upon the Government to adopt a similar course of economic expansion rather than the discredited policies of tax increases and spending cuts which it has pursued to date and which are largely responsible for the latest unemployment statistics, which show an alarming increase of 167,000 unemployed between December, 1984, and January, 1985.


John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment. I am very fortunate to represent the community of North Batt-leford, which is the birthplace of the Hon. Member for Win-nipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). Let me say that the people there are able to contain the sadness at the fact that he is now living in Winnipeg. While I do not want to attack another Member personally, I suggest that what we have just heard is not only a sad example but a shameful defence of the kind of obscene waste of taxpayers' money to which the people of Canada quite resolutely said no on September 4.
We have heard these lame theories of economic development. I think the people of this country, and certainly their representatives in the House, acknowledge that there is definitely a role for government. I do not believe that any Member of our Government would disagree that there is a role for government, provincial governments, labour and all people to work together to promote a healthy and vibrant economy. It is not the role of government to waste untold millions of dollars on so-called economic development, as this Member from Winnipeg so shamefully claims when he says that that in some sense is economic development. That is wasting the taxpayers' money by simply giving vast quantities of money to projects

February 12, 1985
Supply
that did not promote in the long run economic development and, what is more important, human dignity. I think perhaps this Member owes this House a clearer explanation of just what he did to this country in his capacity as the one who dispensed all of this money in the name of so-called economic development.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Eton. Member for the opportunity to elaborate even further on the very constructive developments that took place in the Province of Manitoba. I want to register on behalf of that province a serious objection to the language he used in calling it shameful. Those projects were not federal waste. They were done in consultation with the Chambers of Commerce of that Province, with the City of Winnipeg, the Province of Manitoba, and a wide variety of community organizations. The Hon. Member for The Batt-lefords-Meadow Lake has just in effect insulted thousands of people in Manitoba who worked together on those projects. We are used to that kind of arrogance on the part of the Conservatives.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Who is calling the kettle black?


Lloyd Axworthy: That is the sort of arrogance that says "we know what is best".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: The Hon. Member talks about dignity, Mr. Speaker. Let me talk to him about it. I would be glad to take him on a tour any time to talk to the thousands of people who lived in the core area of Winnipeg, people who had no jobs but who are now being trained and will get employment and have the dignity which work brings, all because of the expenditure of money by my Government. I would like to take the Member to the two or three thousand people who now hold housing units who did not have housing units before. He can tell them that they do not have dignity because of that investment. 1 would like the Hon. Member to talk to the students at the University of Manitoba who are now having an opportunity to be trained in new management studies and in new transportation research studies who are going on to new opportunities for jobs in a high technology world. The Member can tell them that they do not have dignity any more. I would like to take the Member and show him the opportunities for those kinds of investments that took place in a wide variety of neighbourhoods where people were able to start new businesses. I could take him to the warehouse district in Winnipeg where over 50 new businesses were started because of the core initiative. He can talk to the owners of those businesses and say, "You do not have dignity because the federal Liberal gave you an incentive grant to get your business started. We Tories would not do that. We would let you be without a business, without any ownership but with your dignity". That is basically what the Conservatives are talking about; they do not care about people. They do not care about a region like Manitoba. They
simply believe in their theology that the best way to do things is to do nothing at all.
I say to the Hon. Member that if he wants to learn how to start developing an economy, the best place for him to come to is Winnipeg. He will learn an awful lot more there than listening to anybody else in his Government.


Clement George Minaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) has indicated that our contracts and agreements are being ripped up along with the people in our cities and province. I would like that corrected because that is not the case. The Hon. Member implied that we as a Government are not honouring the commitments of the former Government with regard to agreements that were signed in the centre core area initiative-


Lloyd Axworthy: How shameful and wasteful.


Clement George Minaker: -as well as with the former Minister of Transportation. These agreements to which the former Government committed itself are being honoured.


Lloyd Axworthy: But they are shameful and wasteful.


Clement George Minaker: The Hon. Member implied that these commitments are not being carried out, but they are. The Member indicated that the National Research Council Centre is not being built, but it is being built. On the one hand the Member prides himself on the co-operation between the private entrepreneur, the free enterpriser, and his Government, but on the other hand he is firmly against the free enterprise system working with our Government to see that that National Research Council Centre is undertaken by private enterprise.
I sometimes find it difficult to understand the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry when he tries to imply that the contracts to which his Government had committed itself are not being honoured by this Government. They are. But if promises have been wildly made by individual Members that there is no history of commitment anywhere on paper, that is a different matter. I would think that we as a Government should not be committed to somebody's airy-fairy idea of certain projects that he throws around at certain times in an election campaign without any commitment from the government of which he was a part.


Lloyd Axworthy: First, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker) should get together with his colleague in front of him who said that all these things are so shameful and wasteful, that the Conservatives cannot stand it, but who now is saying, "We are very proud to go ahead and continue them". Contradiction is probably the possession of small minds, and I think we have just seen an apt example of that today.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: When we talk about what things have been ripped up, it was the economic statement of the Minister of
February 12, 1985

Finance (Mr. Wilson) where it was written in black and white that the Tories were cancelling the NRC Centre. They said it was cancelled. That was $50 million wiped out of the window-gone.
There has been a lot of pressure from other Members of Parliament, the private sector and universities to restore this centre. We all hope the Government here will have the good sense to respond. If it wants to set up a research co-op of some kind, we would want to do that. The fact is that the project was cancelled by the Minister of Finance, but there is now sufficient public and community pressure to bring it back.
We also had a major commitment to the establishment of the VIA Rail repair base in the City of Winnipeg, which has also just been cancelled by the Minister. This was designed to designate Winnipeg as the major terminal for rail passenger traffic in western Canada. That would have established and confirmed again that Winnipeg is a major transportation centre for the West. That was part of the transportation discussions with the Province of Manitoba. The Hon. Member said it was not ripped up. But it was cancelled. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) has said so.
On the question of Churchill, we were in a committee hearing the other day. We asked the members of the Hudson's Bay Route Association, "Have you met with the Minister to talk about the work of Churchill?" We learned that no one had talked to them yet. We asked what was going on with the development of the light grain car at the Transcona shops. The answer was, "We do not know. No one is talking to us. The CNR has decided somehow to stow it. It is no longer happening. It is kind of held in abeyance, held in limbo".
If the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James is saying that this Government will have the wisdom and good sense to continue the work that we started, then I would applaud him. But I have just heard from other Members that they did not like what we are doing, so we had to find out who is speaking for this Government. It may be that, as always, the backbenchers are beginning to sound like the Ministers. They are contradicting one another.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). In view of his experience in his former portfolio of employment and immigration, does he not think that the way in which Challenge '85 was conceived by the Tory Government that program discriminates against the less fortunate regions of this country, namely Atlantic Canada, parts of Manitoba, parts of western Canada, Quebec and Ontario? Does the Hon. Member not think-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. The period for questions and comments is now over.


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In light of the importance of this whole question to Winnipeg and the fact that nobody from my Party has been able to ask a question on the matter, since it is almost six o'clock, could the House allow a question from this Party?
Adjournment Debate


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: First, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-North Centre (Mr. Keeper) asked for unanimous consent to allow him to ask a question. Obviously there is not unanimous consent.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On the same point of order, I just wish to tell you that our Party would be very agreeable to giving unanimous consent provided that I am allowed to complete my question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) has moved an amendment to the motion that is now before the House. We Find the amendment to be in accordance with the rules.
Mr. Axworthy, seconded by Mr. Caccia-Mr. Frith not being in his assigned seat-moves, if I may phrase it in this manner, that after the word "Manitoba", the following words be added: "and the former Liberal Government".
We are now debating the amendment on the motion before the House.


David Charles Dingwall: On debate, Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings on the motion before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 62(11).



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this point concerning questions which 1 directed to the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) on February 7, 1985. I asked the Minister to confirm whether Pioneer Trust of Regina, Saskatchewan, was in serious financial difficulties.

February 12, 1985
Adjournment Debate
In my supplementary question I asked her to guarantee that there would be a public inquiry or that at least the results of any internal inquiry would be made public. The Minister was good enough to give a decent answer. She said:
Mr. Speaker, I am sympathetic to the Hon. Member's question. I have already informed him that I will let him know of any further developments.
Further developments certainly occurred, in that two and a half hours later I was informed by the Minister's office that the Minister of Finance of the Province of Saskatchewan was at that moment making a public announcement, which in essence indicated that Pioneer Trust was closing its doors at four o'clock Regina time, that it would be placed in receivership, and that its assets would be taken over by Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation.
That evening I sent a letter by hand to the Minister, again making the request that a public inquiry be held into all matters pertaining to Pioneer Trust. I indicated that I believed it was in the public interest that there be an open inquiry into the reasons Pioneer Trust had to close its business and into the efforts that were made to keep it solvent. Also I indicated that depositors, shareholders in Pioneer Management Limited and the general public were entitled to a full accounting. I have requested on various occasions since then that a public inquiry be held, as there are many questions about Pioneer Trust which have been left unanswered.
Let me enumerate some of them. First, we are concerned whether the federal Government, particularly Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation, did everything possible to protect the interests of depositors. We feel that CDIC must have known of the problems which Pioneer had for most of 1984, if not before. Surely a cursory look at its financial statements over the last number of years would indicate that many of its assets were in real estate and that the value of those assets, particularly real estate assets in western Canada, particularly in British Columbia and Alberta, have declined in value.
Therefore, it is important to depositors in Pioneer Trust to know that the federal Government, through CDIC, did everything possible and reasonable to avert this disaster which has occurred and to make certain that Pioneer remained in a liquid and viable form and able to meet its obligations. That is one of the questions which I think a public inquiry should address. A public inquiry should look into the business practices of Pioneer Trust.
There is a great deal of uncertainty and many rumours floating around Regina and there is the feeling that perhaps improper loans were made and that a high enough interest rate was not charged on loans that were made. Did the company use sound business practices? Did it do the things it was supposed to do according to its charter of incorporation? These are all unanswered questions.
We would also like to know how much federal and provincial consultation occurred and when it occurred. Many of the events surrounding this past week seem to indicate that there
might have been a breakdown in communications. I believe that members of the Minister's staff were genuinely surprised when they learned on February 7 that the Saskatchewan Government had decided not to proceed with insuring the $30-million share issue that Pioneer Trust was going to market. We wonder what type of communication did occur between the federal and provincial Governments.
We are also concerned about the type of decisions that the Provincial Government has made. Before Christmas, the provincial Government announced that it would guarantee that $30-million share issue. That created a sense of optimism and trust. It now turns out that that was a false sense of optimism and trust. We are wondering whether or not the provincial Government knew what it was doing.
In summation, there are a great many questions that deserve to be answered in a full and public inquiry. We urge the Government to consider seriously establishing a public inquiry.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I rise in response to the quite genuine concerns on the part of the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong). I too have been concerned about this situation. I am happy to put on the record the steps that have been taken.
Senior management of Pioneer Trust Company made the decision to close the company's offices until further notice at the close of business on February 7, 1985. Management's decision came as a result of its inability to obtain support for a preferred share issue which Pioneer's shareholders had hoped to arrange. The proceeds of the preferred share issue would have been used in large part to replenish the capital base of the trust company. Given that this issue could not be successfully marketed, the continued operation of Pioneer no longer seemed viable and it therefore ceased operations.
On learning of management's decision and the proposed action, I in my capacity directed the federal Superintendent of Insurance to take control of Pioneer's assets so that the interests of the depositors would be best protected. Officers of the Department of Insurance were dispatched immediately to the company's offices and the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation was informed. An application to have the company wound up pursuant to the provisions of the Winding-up Act has been filed in the Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan.
Pioneer Trust has approximately $243 million of deposits, of which about 90 per cent are fully insured by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. Officials of CDIC are now in Regina working on arrangements so that depositors may receive their funds to the extent of the $60,000 limit as quickly as possible once the winding-up order is issued. I am hopeful that by tomorrow there will be an announcement made outlining the arrangements that depositors can make.
Pioneer's current financial problems result mainly from the large proportion of its mortgage portfolio which is in arrears and from the necessity to write down the values of certain of its real estate investments, particularly those in areas which have experienced market depression. As a result of these
February 12, 1985

problems, the company experienced on the one hand a drain on its cash flow due to non-payment of mortgages and on the other a steady erosion of its capital base due to operating and capital losses. In the final analysis, the company became unable to meet the liquidity requirements imposed upon it by the Trust Companies Act and its borrowings exceeded those permitted by that statute.
On June 4, 1984, a hearing was held before the previous Minister of State for Finance which officials of the company attended. As a result of that hearing, limitations were placed on the company's licence with a view to restricting its investments to short-term high-quality debt securities, thereby bolstering its liquidity position and with a view to progressively reducing the company's borrowings by limitation of the interest rates offered by the company to depositors. The company's authorized borrowing multiple was also reduced, with the company being given until December 31, 1984 to comply.
The Hon. Member had two questions. One question dealt with the public inquiry, and I am satisfied that that is not necessary at this point. But I would like to reassure the House, with respect to other western trust companies, that I am not aware of any which are, as he has put it, on the brink of collapse.


PUBLIC SERVICE-AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT-JOB CLASSIFICATIONS. (B) AGREEMENT INQUIRY
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, during the Question Period last Friday, I had hoped to pursue an important matter with the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret). The matter dealt with the six issues which he is, by his own admission, currently discussing with Public Service staff associations.
All I wanted was some clarification, some precision, from the Minister as to whether in fact those six issues were: the master contract, political rights, a dental plan, adjustment procedures, amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act, and Public Service pensions.
Some clarification was and is certainly needed because, until the Minister mentioned the six issues in the House, no one else had, I had not, nor had the staff associations. As a matter of fact, the associations were stunned by the Minister's statement as they believed that the conversations they had with the Minister were in camera and, therefore, confidential.
Perhaps the Minister did not mean to mention the six issues. Perhaps they just popped into his head and on to the floor of the House when the Minister made a passing reference to the election promises which were made by his Party and by his Leader during the last election campaign.
The Minister's Leader and his Party made many promises during that campaign; in fact, hundreds of them. Fortunately, not all of them dealt with Public Service matters. In any case, my friend the Minister was not in the House last Friday and his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), under-
Adjournment Debate
took to answer in place of the President of the Treasury Board. The Minister of Finance either did not choose, or was not able to answer my question about which six issues precisely are being negotiated at this time. Instead, he told me how productive the discussions with the staff associations have been-at least that is the gospel according to the President of the Treasury Board-and how these discussions are expected to result in a great improvement in labour-management relations.
That is all very nice if it is true, but again the staff associations were somewhat mystified. They said last week that they had not yet had any hard input from the President of the Treasury Board on the positions which they had put forward to the Government for consideration. So it would seem to me that not only am I in the dark, and some of the participants in the Minister's discussions still in the dark, about the six issues that are under discussion, but so are the thousands of public servants in this country and the millions of Canadians who are most immediately concerned with the outcome of these negotiations.
I am hoping that this evening-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -someone who can speak with authority on behalf of the Government will be able to tell us which six-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Please, may I say to the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Lewis) that a point of order is not allowed during this period.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I want to know exactly what questions he was asking and I want exact dates, because the matter of the questions which the Member asked of the President of the Treasury Board came up once before. This Member is now asking-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I will fix this.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Please, let the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier finish his question.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, maybe if the Hon. Member would sit down and listen to what is going on, he could fix his own time, get his work done and give us a reasonably good answer. I justs said that I was hoping I would get an answer to the question I asked last Friday.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: When did you ask the question?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On Friday, Sir. I also asked, Mr. Speaker, because of the interesting progress which the President of the Treasury Board says he is making, because of the very productive discussions that he tells his colleagues he is having, when we can expect a signed agreement on all of these six issues. But

February 12, 1985
Adjournment Debate
no one was able or cared to tell me, or the House, what was happening. In fact, the Minister of Finance, on a vital, urgent matters, such as this, only told me that he did not think it was helpful for him or me, " ... to try to draw these discussions onto the floor of the House of Commons ..
I was surprised to hear that from the Minister of Finance. I know he qualified it slightly by referring to, and again I quote, " ... a point when they .. ."-talking about the negotiations- "... are at a sensitive stage and are clearly resulting in an improvement in the tone of labour-management relations". We are all in favour of that. But we only have the Minister's word about any improvement, Mr. Speaker. There has been no hard input from the President of the Treasury Board on the association's proposals. There is no agreement signed. There is nothing to prove the Minister's statement. As far as "drawing" the discussions on to the floor of the House of Commons is concerned, it seems to me that that is a much more appropriate place than in the corridors of the House, which is where the President of the Treasury Board took them. It is far more legitimate, as far as 1 am concerned, to have the details given on the floor of the House, to Members of Parliament, than given to the media outside the House as was done last week.
My purpose, Mr. Speaker, has never been in any way to interfere with any discussions that might be under way or in any way to prejudice them, either on the floor of the House or anywhere else. My purpose has only been to obtain answers to questions which I have raised here in this House. They were legitimate questions, seriously asked. I hope that someone on the government side will be able to give me some answers.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that I am still waiting for an answer to a question I raised on February 4 which was specifically: when new contracts are negotiated with the Public Service Alliance or with Public Service unions in general, will job classification be made negotiable? The President of the Treasury Board answered that progress was to be expected and that, indeed, he was very happy with the progress being made on the six issues. I raise this question with the Parliamentary Secretary: where are we at this time?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it is going to be quite a job, but I will try to enlighten the Hon. Member. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) said in the House on February 4, in response to a question raised by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), that he had had a number of meetings over the past few months with the Public Service union leaders and that progress was being made on the package of issues under discussion. Outside the House later that day, in response to reporters' questions, he reiterated that discussion to date had gone along quite well and added that he hoped to have an agreement on the package in a very short time.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier seek to disrupt any negotiations which the Government might be having with the union.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Nonsense.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: We are not about to let that happen, Mr. Speaker. It is unfortunate that the President's remarks have been interpreted in some quarters as an indication that the Government is near or has reached an agreement with the unions. Further discussions are required with the unions before the President of the Treasury Board is in a position to ask his colleagues to approve a course of action for the reasonable disposition of the issues. Unfortunately, the President had to cancel his last scheduled meeting with the unions on rather short notice but it is his firm intention to resume discussions with them at an early date with a view to having decisions taken on the issues within the time frame he has outlined to them in discussions.
When the parties last met, there was tacit agreement that while talks continued, they would refrain from staking out their positions publicly and would confine themselves to stating that there are a number of issues and solutions and that discussions are taking place on them. In contrast to the way the previous administration dealt with unions, we keep our word. It is evident, Mr. Speaker, from the discussions which have taken place that the union leaders share this Government's desire to improve union management relations in the Public Service. This is in direct contrast to the way relations deteriorated under the former Liberal Government.
I will not frustrate their desires, nor will I break the Party's confidences and jeopardize a mutually satisfactory outcome of the discussions. I wish to assure the Hon. Member, however, that the President of the Treasury Board intends to resume discussions with the unions on the issues at the earliest possible date and remains confident that an early agreement can be reached.


TRANSPORT-AUTOMOBILE EMISSION CONTROLS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, during Question Period, the Minister of State for Transport (Mr. Bouchard) made the absurd and incorrect statement that the responsibility of replying to my question on car pollution controls rested with the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier). The Department of Transport, as the Minister well knows, is the only Department responsible for introducing automobile emission controls. I do not know whether to ask myself whether the Minister of State for Transport (Mr. Bouchard) really knows what his Department is responsible for, or whether we should all view this incident as another example of a Government that does not know what it is doing. But one thing is obvious. We have two Ministers of Transport who share two different views on what their Department should be doing. One shirks his responsibility by shifting the onus of responsibility to the Minister of the Environment. The other, the senior Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankow-ski), recognizes that automobile emission controls is a matter for which his Department has the responsibility, but he procrastinates. He would rather not decide. Meanwhile, we have a Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who talks a good fight about the need for a cleaner environment. He wants to go to Quebec City next month for his meeting with President Reagan with
February 12, 1985

"clean hands". But the Prime Minister should know that if he wants to be squeaky clean for the President of the United States, he should talk to his Ministers of Transport about announcing automobile emission controls very soon.
Of course, if he is really in a talkative mood, Mr. Speaker, he might remind the Minister of the Environment that she should also be concerned about automobile emission controls, because so far she has not demonstrated a great environmental concern. Of course, the Prime Minister may just have to face up to reality and come to grips with the fact that he has a Department of Transport headed by two Ministers, who either do not understand the importance of the meeting with President Reagan or who just do not care if an accord is reached on finding a joint solution to our common problem of acid rain.
The Prime Minister must decide which way he is going to lean. If he supports the Minister of Transport, who seems reluctant to make a decision on emission controls, he faces the problem of disregarding his own environmental problems. Let us hope the Prime Minister will be able to overcome the reticence of his recalcitrant Minister of Transport.
The battle on this important issue, Mr. Speaker, will take place behind the closed doors of Cabinet. Most likely it will centre on when rather than whether the new regulations will become effective. Who will win? Will it be the Prime Minister, so his hands will be clean for President Reagan? Will it be the Minister of Transport, who wants to take more time before he takes action? Or will it be the Minister of the Environment, who so far has indicated she is more concerned with industry than the environment? Let us hope, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will emerge as the winner. The bottom line question is, when will the car emission controls become effective? Will it be 1987, 1988, 1989 or 1990, or will it be later? From an environmental as well an economic point of view, the obvious answer is 1987.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am quite amused by the Hon. Member's comments. One has to ask oneself, where was the Hon. Member over the past few years? He mentioned procrastination. Where was he during the last Government?


Mr. Caccia:: Laying the groundwork for you.
Adjournment Debate


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: He mentioned cabinet meetings. Where was he during these Cabinet meetings? He asks, what success did we have? Well, I ask the Hon. Member what success he had? Was he not holding the position of Minister of the Environment, or was he perhaps trying to fool the people?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Best Minister we ever had.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: There were a lot of rhetorical questions being asked by the Hon. Member when the fact of the matter was that he was the Minister of the Environment and watched all the delay and procrastination on the part of the previous Liberal Government. That is a shame, and the Hon. Member should know better than to bring it up.
I want the Hon. Member to know that for more than two years officials of the Departments of Transport, Environment, Health and Welfare, Energy, Mines and Resources, and Regional Industrial Expansion have been studying the effects of motor vehicle exhaust emission on the health of Canadians and on the environment through the formation of acid rain. That is probably the first time the Hon. Member ever heard that. These studies have also considered the potential impact of possible regulatory changes on the petroleum and automotive industries as well as on consumers. I want to tell the Hon. Member that there have been a large number of reports, all prepared under the previous administration. But the previous administration did nothing. I want the Hon. Member to know that in less than six months since we have been in office we have been able to arrange public hearings where all interested Parties could table data and express views. In addition, the present Government has managed the completion of all the analytical work. In contrast to the complete inaction when the Hon. Member was the Minister, the results are in and are presently being reviewed by the Ministers of Transport, the Environment, Health, Energy and Industry. I can assure the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) that in contrast to the years of inaction by the Liberal Party, there will be an appropriate announcement very shortly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.26 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 13, 1985