1985-04-16

Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor) moved:: That this House calls upon the Government to immediately bring in stimulative proposals to reduce unemployment by a minimum of 2.5 per cent within the next 12 months, given the failure of the Government to live up to its commitment to make job creation its number one priority, and its pursuit, instead, of a policy of cutbacks which has led to a rise in unemployment in three of the last four months.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to be able to move this Opposition Day motion today. It is particularly fine to do so with the kind of billing which was given to it yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). In answer to a question by the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), the Prime Minister said the following:
-1 suppose if the Hon. Member had a formula, or the Leader of the Opposition, or anyone else, that he could give me, whereby we can bring down unemployment by 2.5 per cent in the next month or two, I would grab it and say thank you, and I know the country would too.
Last week the Action Group of the New Democratic Party, after completing a tour across the country and talking with over 400 groups and individuals, released to the public a plan or an approach. I certainly cannot promise people here or people in the country that this approach would reduce the unemployment rate by 2.5 per cent in a month or two, but it would certainly give the country the kind of direction which, over the next year, would take our unemployment rate from the present unacceptable, humanly tragic level of 11.2 per cent down by that 2.5 per cent about which we talked yesterday in the House of Commons. That is a commitment which I think the people of Canada are demanding. It is a commitment which they feel is urgent and crucial, a commitment which they feel is only just, given the promises and the positions taken by the Government and the present Prime Minister prior to his election.
What we have in Canada is a crisis for people. I want to commence my remarks this morning by talking about some of the people I met across the country in the national tour which our Action Group organized to reach out to communities across Canada. There were some tragic stories which pointed out in a deeply emotional way to me the sense of human loss
that we as a country are experiencing because of the existing tragic unemployment figures.
For instance, I want to talk about a man named Robert MacDonald in Cape Breton who has spent over 18 months criss-crossing the country putting in applications to company after company and not succeeding in finding a position. I want to talk about the unemployed construction workers who met us en masse in Edmonton and conveyed to us, in their anger and in their concern, their own outrage at unemployment rates of 75 per cent to 80 per cent in some of the particular skills which they represented in that city. I want to talk about the unemployed textile workers, most of whom were women 50 years to 55 years of age. They met us in Montreal. These women told us that their lives had lost meaning, that their capacity to provide for the needs of their families had been stripped away from them, and that their own sense of pride in the country was being sapped by the cruel way in which they were being treated as middle-aged unemployed women.
I want to talk about a young man, Pierre Desjardins in Moncton, who indicated to us that this was the year of the youth, yet those who come out of university in Moncton face unemployment rather than the prospect of jobs. I want to talk about Ron and Tony Camponi, Metis leaders in Saskatoon. They told me about the 200 units of Metis housing produced in Saskatoon for which Metis construction workers could not even bid in the last three years.
I want to talk about young people like Terry Bellavance who spoke to us in Thunder Bay on behalf of the Ontario March of Dimes. He is one of the many disabled or handicapped people in the country. He is looking for a chance to play a fair role in this community, a chance to live the life to which every Canadian is entitled.
I do not want to talk only about the human tragedy because the most exciting part of this tour or the most exciting part of this experience was for me to hear from people across the country that they felt this was not a tragedy which was unavoidable. It is not a tragedy that we simply have to accept. It is something that it is possible, by action, direction and leadership, to do something about. The people from whom I want to bring the message to this House of Commons are people like the woman named Core Strandberg of Vancouver who sat down with us and spent an afternoon talking in detail about the economic development corporations springing up across British Columbia, 36 of them in total. She showed a kind of grassroots dynamism and potential that we have to support and encourage.

April 16, 1985
Supply
1 want to talk to you about women like Laurilie Kilgour of Hamilton who, despite discouragement and her difficulty as a woman in getting financing from our banking system, started a small graphics factory. She built it up into a thriving small business, providing employment within that community. She built it up despite the Government rather than with the support and encouragement of the Government.
I want to talk to you about people like Richard Cashin of St. John's and Jack Nichol in British Columbia who told us about the vast potential that is there if we build on our fish resources on both coasts of this country. 1 want to talk to you about people like Rick Fuerth from the Essex County Federation of Agriculture in my constituency. He told us in detail about the jobs that are there if we in this country give the kind of support to agriculture, one of our key resource sectors, that it deserves.
I want to talk to you about people like the young man from the unemployed Action Centre in Thunder Bay. He came before us and said that here in Thunder Bay just down the road is a shipyard that used to produce new ships. He said it used to provide thousands of jobs, but now does not do so because we have let the shipping industry in this country disappear. We have not given it the kind of support and encouragement that the jobs of Canadian people demand and deserve.
I want to talk to you about the Federation of New Brunswick Woodlot Owners, small owners who came to us and said that if we gave them the support instead of giving it to the large forest companies, they would reforest this, province and they would do it by providing extra jobs as well. I want to talk to you about groups like the Mining Association of Canada who came to us and talked with excitement about the potential that is there for taking the new technology in this country, marrying it together with the tremendous resource base and the mineral sector that we have, and turning us into a country that can produce the mining equipment that a country as rich in resources as this country is deserves to be producing.
The ideas are there, the potential is there and the capacity is there. What is needed is a sense of will, a sense of leadership to realize this potential. In the report we put out last week, we attempted to provide that sense of direction and leadership. We did so around three broad themes because we think there is an answer that can focus on three broad directions of change.
The first is a community self-direction, a philosophy that says, let's give support and encouragement to these hundreds and hundreds of community development organizations, cooperatives, small business organizations, and municipal Governments that want to take the potential that is there at the community level and turn it into jobs. They gave us detailed recommendations and ideas to do so. We have included those recommendations within our report. I recommend them to the Government. They are not designed to embarrass or score partisan points, but to put across the message from Canadians that they believe something can be done in this country and
that they have serious ideas to suggest. These are ideas we have summed up around the notions of how to encourage and open up the potential for community co-operatives, how to assist economic development corporations throughout the country, how to find detailed ways to give real help to small business, and how to give assistance to municipal Governments so that they can do what the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has said is crucial, and that is, to rebuild the infrastructure in this country. However, in order to achieve this, it takes more than simply saying, "Let 100 flowers bloom". We cannot simply say that we will encourage all of these things to take place.
As well, we need to have a sense of national self-direction. We need to have a philosophy indicating that to achieve this kind of community self-direction, we need a sense at the national level of corporate accountability. We need a commitment from the large-scale corporate sector to pay its fair share of taxation, to take its proper role in the training needs of the country, and to give us an indication of a sense of responsibility to communities so that when a large corporation wants to shut down a plant, it talks with the community and gives it a chance to develop some kind of alternative by having workers take it over or by having a local economic development corporation take it over.
There must be as well a sense of independence in our interest rate policy. There must be a serious effort to build on our resources. We have to practise a structure of fair trade rather than throw ourselves at the mercy of the rest of the world with the kind of free trade philosophy that does not recognize how tough and harsh the international economy actually is.
Besides this sense of community self-direction and national self-direction, we need a profound commitment to equity and equality in the workplace. Across the country, we have not given that equity and equality to the women who make up half of our workforce, to the disabled who rightly demand their fair share of the benefits we in this country have to offer, to visible minorities and to those who represent ethnocultural communities. There has to be a sense of equity established through aggressive action, which frankly must be more aggressive than the action the Minister has yet taken.
That is the kind of broad direction that we see possible. It is a direction that we have described in something like 70 recommendations. However, we must take the first step now. We need a Budget that takes that first step now. In six weeks' time, we can have a Budget that puts jobs first. We can have a Budget that makes serious moves toward cutting our unemployment rate by 2.5 per cent and giving us the 300,000 extra jobs that would be necessary to do that.
We have to stop playing Chicken Little over the deficit. The deficit is an important concern. We in this Party have always recognized that. However, if we rush around the country saying that the sky is falling and we have to worry about the
April 16, 1985

deficit, we will not get the jobs this country needs and, just as ironically, we will not get the deficit down.
When this kind of preaching started in this country in 1975, the deficit was $3 billion. There has been Budget after Budget which has told us that we must be concerned about the deficit and that we must bring it down. As that has happened year by year, we have seen the deficit rise to $36 billion. I predict now, as I have predicted before, that if we have a Budget that concentrates on cut-backs and reducing the deficit, it will result a year from now in fewer jobs and a higher deficit than we presently have. The only way to get the deficit down over the next three to five years is to take the kind of approach which we are talking about in our counter-Budget that will put stimulus into the economy and get Canada growing once more. We have laid out a budget plan which is based on shifts within the Budget, shifts of expenditure and shifts of taxation, shifts which will bring us an extra 4.2 billion in spending, $3.1 billion on community development, and $1.1 billion on resource upgrading. It would shift $2.7 billion of tax breaks from the commitment to the corporate tax sector and the wealthy to a commitment to tax breaks for the working people. Another $2.7 billion can be saved in interest rate reductions and in reducing the rate of unemployment.
To succeed in this new direction we need a different approach. We need to give real help to small businesses and communities, not the Conservative Government's give-aways to large oil companies and the Commercial Bank of Canada. We need a real priority for jobs, not the Conservative Government's paralysis over cut-backs and deficits. We need real moves to build our resources, not the Conservative Government's delays on reforestation and its dismal record on agriculture. We need real efforts to build on our industrial base through fair trade, not the Conservative Government's sense of sell-out that free trade and "Warehouse Canada" represent. We need a Government that means what it says. We need a Government that comes through with the promise and the commitment to make jobs a priority. We need a Government that Canadians will not have to say is a mean-spirited Government which wants to run on the backs of the unemployed by way of changes such as the severance pay and retirement points which the Minister will bring in. In doing those things it will shift the problems of the economy on the backs of the people who deserve to suffer the least.
There is, as the Prime Minister asked us yesterday, an approach, a path, and a plan which would cut the unemployment rate by 2.5 per cent. I urge the Government to follow that direction, not the dismal and sorry direction in which it has begun.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments on the speech of the Hon. Member? If not, I will recognize the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) on debate.
Supply


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that I very much welcome this opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government to the motion which has been put before the House today by the New Democratic Party. It gives me an opportunity to comment on what the Government is doing-a record which I feel is very substantial for a period of six months. It also gives me an opportunity to comment on the recommendations that were brought forward by the Task Force on Unemployment which was set up by the New Democratic Party.
I found the report interesting. I want to tell the Hon. Member that I gave him and his colleagues the courtesy of reading through it. I did not examine it all in detail but I did look at it. I want to say that I think it was a good effort on their part and I think it was an important thing to do, that is, to go out and consult with people across the country on this very important issue. I know because that is what I have been doing for the last number of months.
Certainly, trying to come to grips with this issue can only be done at the local level. I think that both the people in government and those who are on the New Democratic Party task force have tried to do that. It has not yet dawned on the Hon. Members of the Liberal Party that that approach is one they also should be taking, but perhaps having read the two reports of the two Parties, they will begin to think about getting jobs for people other than all those Liberal candidates who were defeated last autumn.
I would like to comment on whether or not this Canada unlimited project, which promises to solve all the problems of unemployment, is really going to be able to do that. What I found when I first saw the results in the newspaper reports was the tone, the things which had been discovered and, in fact, the reversal of New Democratic policy in the field of job-creation, unemployment and training. The first headline I saw read, "NDP Thrust would put Job Funds into Community Hands". Abandoning the big centralized machine of former years, that is the way it would go.


Mr. Althouse:: Seven or eight years ago.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Well, if the Hon. Member would look at the Government's labour market strategy and at the various programs which have already been put in place, he would find that community based plans are indeed the thrust of the Government's undertakings. The next headline I saw in the newspapers read, "NDP Proposes Job-Creation Without Big Deficit Increase". Surely, Sir, that is a real change of mind for those hon. members of the New Democratic Party. I welcome what they have to say. I know, as well as my colleagues, that we have to stimulate job-creation, create more jobs, but at the same time we have to be very fearful of adding to the weight of a deficit.
The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) is quoted as saying, "We simply can't accept that we have large

April 16, 1985
Supply
deficits continuing. It doesn't make any sense". We have been trying to tell the New Democratic Party that for some time. Of course, it does not make any sense, and I am glad to see in that Party's report a recognition of the things which should be done. The Hon. Member talked about corporate accountability, bringing in the private sector. The whole plan which has been outlined in the last few months, in moving away from the short-term job-creation dead-end which used to be in effect, is to bring in the co-operation of the provinces and the private sector. Certainly there should be more contribution by the private sector and what we are already doing is taking that into account.
It seems to me, Sir, that these things are in the report which 1 read and which I welcome because I think there is a dawning of a new light in the New Democratic Party. I think it shows that, having gone out and consulted with the people of Canada, those Hon. Members now realize where action must be taken, what people want and how it can best be incorporated. As a result of that, I expect the wholehearted support of the New Democratic Party for the steps the Government is taking in this regard. Who knows, the New Democratic Party may even recover somewhat from that 17 per cent if it pursues these very sensible methods.


Mr. King:: Not much, though.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: My colleague says, "Not much", but we will look at it over the months. Unfortunately, even though the NDP has presented some interesting proposals, not terrifically original but some ideas in the field of job-creation, it cannot wean itself completely away from thinking that there has to be a sudden cure of all ills by Government and that it is going to happen overnight. Those Hon. Members still have the feeling that somehow you can utter a few sentences and total unemployment, total deficits and the total difficulties we are facing will be eradicated. I suppose they take that approach because that is part of their long-term thinking. They cannot move away from it because, of course, they do not face the reality of day-to-day Government. They can indulge in euphoric thinking. From time to time Members indulge in this business of sitting and thinking about what can be done in the abstract. They realize they will not have to put some of these grandiose schemes into practice. Indeed, with 17 per cent of the electorate supporting them, why should they think that way? It is not likely that they will have to take on those responsibilities very soon. But we do have to take on those responsibilities and we have to consider all the factors.
We, Mr. Speaker, have to consider the deficit. We have to consider interest rates. We have to consider industrial investment policy, world trade, tax reform, energy policy, labour market development and much, much more. We have to deal with these issues, and we are. As my colleagues will know, we are dealing with them in the new energy agreements on both the East Coast and the West Coast. Governments have struggled for years to obtain these energy agreements, but we have
accomplished it and the agreements will generate new wealth and create new jobs.
We are dealing with these issues through measures to improve the environment. We are dealing with them through the control of Government waste. We are dealing with them in a taxpayers' Bill of Rights. Not least of all, we are dealing with them in a new labour market strategy which was announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in February of this year. As the NDP has discovered in its trip across the country, that strategy is dealing with these issues. It is working with Canadians at the community level, with other Governments, labour organizations, and businesses large and small. For the first time this strategy is based on multi-year fundings so that one can begin to plan ahead. It reflects the regional diversity of this country and allows training, job creation and human resource development to go ahead according to the needs of the various parts of this country.
I ask you to look at the commitments we have already made, Sir; some $80 million over and above previous commitments for skills investment to help retrain that 46 year old warehouseman or the middle-aged woman whose job is being phased out, to help them retrain before they actually lose their jobs. That is a commitment which has not been made before and one we think we should be moving into with the help of business and other Governments.
There is $350 million for job development over and above what had been committed before. Any one of us in this House, no matter from what Party, who has seen or met or talked with someone who has been unemployed for long, recognizes his or her plight and knows that something has to be done about it so that a person does not face a lifetime without work. This money has been committed to create long-term jobs in concert with the provinces and private sector, jobs of a substantive nature rather than the short-term dead-end projects of the past.
There is $125 million for job entry to help young people entering the workforce for the first time to bridge the gap and make the transition from school to work with on-site experience. The same applies to women coming into the labour force for the first time, or perhaps re-entering the labour force after having been absent for a while. This program will help them to get into real jobs which will provide security and a future.
Just as we want individuals to have these opportunities, Sir, we want communities to have them as well. That is why we have earmarked $40 million to community futures, to look at communities which are in decline or where their industry could be in decline and ask what should be done beforehand to turn that situation around. I may say that I appreciate hearing from the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) who was up in Labrador and did a study of some of the communities there. He sent me a copy of that section of the report. I thank him for sending it to me because I know that we have the same interests at heart in trying to avoid the catastrophe which can happen to single industry towns and the people who live in them.
April 16, 1985

Sir, these measures in this new labour strategy indicate that this Government is taking a new approach with a new openness, a new and imaginative development of human resources and job creation while recognizing regional disparity. That is why we have earmarked $100 million for innovation and experimentation in this field. We look to Canadians to provide the creativity and ingenuity that they have to help in the search for answers. I have already talked with people, groups and organizations; people in organized labour, women's groups, people from the private sector and provincial Governments. I have asked them to come forward with ideas or pilot projects to see how we can move into this new world of work; to see that the experimental projects which prove successful can be utilized in other parts of the country.
It is the first time a Government has earmarked $100 million for innovation and I know, from talking with such organizations as the CLC, that they will be coming to us with their suggestions on how this money can be utilized. I say this, Mr. Speaker, because when this strategy was introduced at the First Ministers' Conference in Regina, among other people who happened to comment on it was the Minister responsible for economic security in Manitoba, Mr. Evans, and he said, "It is a move in the right direction". The Premier of Manitoba, Mr. Pawley, commented very favourably on the way in which the labour market strategy was developing, and indeed put his Government's approval on it.
I mention that because I think this is something we all have to work at. 1 do not think any single Government or any single sector can resolve this issue on its own. That is why we have sought opportunities to create permanent jobs for hundreds of thousands of Canadians. Opportunities! It is a key word, Sir, but central to those opportunities is another thing which I have enunciated here in the House which is being worked on at present and which Hon. Members will shortly be able to support when legislation is brought before the House. I am talking about the principle of employment equity, because that is central to any labour market strategy. We are determined that, once and for all, women, disabled persons, native people, and visible minorities will get the opportunities they should have in Canada's workforce in the market-place. They should do so as equal partners, having the same opportunity as anyone else. This in itself is a breakthrough. The Hon. Member may not believe so, but I can tell him that in the House of Commons it is a breakthrough.
We have gone further than this. I was pleased to announce last month that we are establishing a new code of conduct that will ensure employment equity in the Public Service and that will lead to a concept that we all endorse, the implementation of equal pay for work of equal value. These steps will lead to meaningful jobs for Canadians for ongoing periods. We have to establish solid and good foundations. That is what this new labour market strategy is attempting to do. We are optimistic about it.
Supply
I was glad that the NDP went across the country and discovered that the country is optimistic and there is confidence. I feel that there is very much confidence. I have just returned from a meeting of OECD countries in Italy on employment and technology. I was struck by the pessimism which abounds on this issue in many of the European countries as shown through their Governments. That same lack of confidence does not exist here in Canada. It does not exist because the people of Canada themselves are confident about the future. The Government has been stimulating that confidence in the market-place.
Some headlines in the press which indicate this confidence include one in the Montreal Gazette which reads: "Employment Outlook Best In Years, Survey Finds". The Toronto Globe and Mail said: "Prospects for Jobless Appear Brighter". The Telegraph Journal of Saint John, New Brunswick carried a headline which reads: "Summer-Job Situation Looks Bright". A headline in The Ottawa Citizen reads: "Job Outlook Improving StatsCan". In The Toronto Star one headline reads: "Small Firms Seen Creating 200,000 Jobs in Half a Year".
There is confidence in the country that this very great issue can be tackled, Mr. Speaker. There is confidence and there is a response. The Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) has set the tone for the NDP in criticizing the Challenge '85 program for students. As negative as he has been, and as much as he has tried to undermine that program and do away with jobs for young people this summer, 150,000 new jobs have been submitted, and the private sector itself has added an additional 50,000 jobs. It has added just under $100 million to a government established fund of $205 million. That fund has gone from $200 million to $300 million. Unfortunately, the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville is still trying to run it down and undermine it. That is a rather discouraging thing for young people.


Mr. Murphy:: Where are the jobs?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: These people ask, "Where are the jobs?" They do not want young people to have jobs this summer. That is their whole approach. The difference between the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party, whose Members do not take this issue up, and the Conservative Party is that we have faith in the people of Canada. We have faith that we will be able to bring unemployment down. We know that new jobs are there and are being created. We know that the new labour market strategy which is now under way is stimulating the people, the businesses, and the Governments of the country to create the jobs and the wealth that is necessary. That, Sir, is triggering our economic renewal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister a question relating to her reference to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I would like to ask her what action she has taken due to the many representations made on behalf of the 210 fishermen in Bonavista Bay. The Minister received a telex

April 16, 1985
Supply
from the Premier of Newfoundland, the Minister of Fisheries, and the Minister of Social Development some three or four months ago. Does the Minister remember the case of the 210 fishermen who had been judged as having had over-payments in unemployment insurance?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I know exactly what you are talking about. Go right ahead.


George Baker: I just want to point out to the Minister, in a reference to unemployment insurance, the danger of the Minister and the Government giving a signal to the Unemployment Insurance Commission and employment offices across the country with regard to unemployment insurance in those particular offices.
When unemployment insurance benefits are examined, in the case of fish companies, you may find that an unemployment insurance stamp was given for two weeks when there was legally only one shipment on the books. When the audit is done it may said that that fisherman did not deserve those two weeks of unemployment insurance, although he did in 1982 or 1983, as most of these audits are determining. The fact of the matter is that those groups of fishermen and workers are judged to be guilty of an over-payment from the Commission and they have to pay back thousands of dollars.
In the case of the 210 fishermen in Bonavista Bay the Government of Newfoundland made a request for the Minister to intervene and to try to overlook the problem with these 210 workers. Can the Minister report to the House? Has she got her book with her that she can perhaps look at? Does she know of the 210 fishermen in Bonavista Bay that I am talking about?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I am quite familiar with Bonavista Bay. The Hon. Member will know that. He will also know that in the case he raises the mistake was made by the company concerned. I think he will understand that. He will also know that every person involved has a right to appeal. The Commission has notified every individual to file an appeal in this case. Any claims for repayment have been held up pending those appeals.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, 1 enjoyed the Minister's speech. As always, her heart is in the right place. It is her head and, unfortunately, her partisanship that gets her into trouble. There is a certain potential to deal with substance that she demonstrated in her speech. It is unfortunate that she found it necessary to launch cheap shots at my colleague, the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy), at the end of her otherwise fairly civilized discourse.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steven W. Langdon: Unfortunately, civilized discourse is not Party commitment. Our quarrel is not with this Minister. This Minister is not the Mr. Scrooge or the Chicken Little of the Government running around saying that the sky is falling. The Minister who deserves that title is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). As this Minister knows, he is the one who has
been giving her trouble and making it difficult for her to do the things she has been talking about.
We have magnificent ideas and plans that the Minister has talked about. I have to ask her why only $40 million, why only $80 million? Why the small sums of money for what are excellent ideas? I know the answer. The answer has to do with the Scrooge-like quality of the people who run this Government.
I have a set of questions for the Minister. Since she has said she has had a chance to read our report, let me ask her if in Cabinet she will advocate the $2.7 billion in tax breaks that we recommend for middle and lower income people? Will she advocate $850 million for a community development fund? Will she advocate the proposal of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for a $12 billion ten-year program to upgrade municipal infrastructure? Will she advocate a technology fund of $200 million a year? Will she accept the commitment to reforestation, the commitment to fisheries, and the commitment to agriculture? Will she see to it that her Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) puts that into effect? Will she see to it that new tax sources that could be tapped by asking corporations to make the very simple step of paying interest on deferred taxes are tapped? Will she accept the proposal that we raise taxes for upper income people to the fair levels that were there under Mr. MacEachen in the past? Will she, in short, make the kind of rhetorical commitment which she and her Party are so magnificent in making and try to translate it into real action instead of empty phrases? Will she see to it that we get real help for small business community development instead of seeing that $1.5 billion goes to the multinational oil companies and $60 billion to the Canadian Commercial Bank? Will the Minister put her own career on the line, her own commitment to fight in Cabinet for a serious "jobs first" Budget? If so, she will have my support.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have to tell the Hon. Member that I have been putting my political career on the line every day since 1972, and I can tell him that the people in my district seem to feel that the way I have been doing that has merited their support. I hope I can continue to do that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I must say I listened to the questions that have been posed by the Hon. Member. But what happens is that he then blows his case. I know that in his comments on his report he said that we have to be concerned about the deficit. There was a recognition that the size of the deficit has its dangers. But then the Hon. Member turned around and posed questions to me such as: Would I add $12 billion to the expenditures here, and add some other billions there? I have to tell the Hon. Member that he cannot have it both ways.


Mr. Deans:: Of course you can.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is what the whole story is about. There can be a proper basis for a labour market strategy, and
April 16, 1985

on that you build, but you do not try to resolve things only by throwing money at them. You try to accomplish this by developing human resources. I have to tell the Hon. Member that of all the Ministers in this Cabinet, there is no one who has received better treatment from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) than I have. There is no one else who can show that in the last few months he or she has received $900 million from him. That is not a bad beginning.


Ian Deans: The rest of them were a bunch of slackers. That is the problem. I agree they are not pushing enough.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: And so, Mr. Speaker, I just mentioned that that $900 million is going into all sorts of measures which I tried to outline and which are going to be very beneficial. Starting now with the summer program, they are allowing people to train and equip themselves for the jobs and the work in the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: A short supplementary from the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate. (Mr. Baker).


George Baker: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to thank the Minister for her answer, which was in substance that people would not have to pay until the judgment is made, if the judgment is against them. My point was that in pursuing the audits and checking on unemployment insurance, you are going to run into thousands of those problems and you are going to have thousands of people who will have to pay money back to the Government when they should not have to pay it back.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments is now terminated. I would like to recognize the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand).
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that we fully support the motion before the House. We believe that stimulus is necessary to deal with the unemployment situation, that goals are necessary, and that priorities are necessary. I want to say right away that we along with the Party that presented the motion do not believe the Government's approach is working. We do not think the approach will work and we feel that the Government has not lived up to the promises made during the election campaign.
With respect to this very important issue, I refer to a Gallup poll published on January 28, 1985. It reported that 56 per cent of Canadians believe that unemployment is still Canada's major problem. That is correct, of course, and if we look at the figures, Mr. Speaker, we will see why.
In January, 1984, last year, when the Liberals were in power and we were coming out of the recession, the rate of unemployment was 11.4 per cent. In June of last year the unemployment rate went down to 11.2 per cent. It hit a low in the middle of the summer, in July, of 11 per cent, and then in September, the month when the Conservative Government was
Supply
elected, the unemployment rate went up to 11.6 per cent. It has been around that level since then.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Not less than last year at this time.


Mr. Allmand:: In October, the unemployment rate was 11.2 per cent, in November, it was 11.3 per cent, in January, it was 11.2 per cent, in February, it was 11.0 per cent and in March, it was 11.2 per cent.
As you can see from the figures, Mr. Speaker, there is relatively little change in the unemployment figures over the last year. Let us look at the averages in the year's preceding
1984.	In 1979, the average unemployment rate was 7.4 per cent, in 1980, it was 7.5 per cent, in 1981, it was 7.5 per cent, and then the rate jumped to 11 per cent in 1982 with the recession which hit the entire western developed world. That rate has stayed around 11 per cent since 1982, hitting its worst year in 1983 in the pit of the recession.
The Government had said over and over that once it was elected great confidence would be restored in the country, that businessmen would invest, that employment would climb and that unemployment would decline. As I pointed out, the figures do not show that. Not only do the figures not show that, but I want to use a tactic that was used very well by the Minister herself and also by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) who likes to quote headlines from newspapers.
I have here a Canadian Press story published in the Gazette dated October 5, 1984. It reads, "Economists forecast slowdown in Canada". That is from the Conference Board of Canada. A Gallup Poll of January 7, 1985 reports that fewer today expect unemployment to fall. Fewer expect unemployment to fall, that is the Conference Board's confidence in the Conservative Government which was supposed to instil all sorts of confidence. A story in The Globe and Mail, the great Conservative newspaper, dated December 5, reads, "Production and Employment drop sharply". On January 7, 1985, also from The Globe and Mail a headline reads, "Forty-two per cent expect increase in jobless in 1985". From March 26,
1985,	we have a Canadian Press story which is headed, "Most forecasters expect high unemployment in 1986".
The confidence which was supposed to return to Canada with the election of this Government, as was promised, is not there. It is not there as shown in the Gallup polls. It is not there as indicated by economists who analyse the situation. The Government's approach is not working and will not work. We need stimulus, but the Government is giving us cuts as exemplified in the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on November 8. In fact, it is withdrawing stimulus from the Canadian labour market rather than increasing it.
As I said, two things are necessary-we should have stimulus and we should have goals. Yesterday I was pleased when the Leader of the New Democratic Party rose in the House and asked whether we could have a six and five program for unemployment. I have been saying that myself for several years now. As a matter of fact, in the report of the task force

April 16, 1985
Supply
on employment opportunities published in 1981, we recommended a full employment policy. I am pleased to say that Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party supported that recommendation for a full employment policy, but the two Conservative Members on the committee dissented from that recommendation.
It is important to indicate that every time Governments in this country have fixed exact goals for unemployment, they have come close to attaining those goals. As was pointed out yesterday, under the six and five program for inflation, by setting those goals over a three-year period-and other factors came into play-inflation came down from approximately 13 per cent to less than 5 per cent because that was made a priority and it was a goal.
Let us look at the two other times since the Second World War when the Government of this country made full employment its goal and came very close to achieving it. In 1945, right after the war, the Liberal Government of Canada published a white paper on full employment. It set out goals to achieve full employment and the means of doing so. In the period from 1946 to 1953, the average rate of unemployment was 3 per cent. The next time a goal was set for full employment was when the Liberal Government set up the Economic Council of Canada in 1963. In its first report of 1964, it recommended a full employment policy. Immediately following that time, in the period from 1965 to 1967, the rate of unemployment was 3.8 per cent. We can see that when we set goals, as we did with the six and five for inflation and as we did in 1946 and 1964 for employment, we come close to achieving them because those goals are priorities and those priorities prevail over all other matters which come before the Government.
When I say that stimulus is necessary, of course I do not mean any kind of stimulus. I mean a well thought out and appropriate stimulus, a stimulus which is appropriate to our geography, population, resources, trading partners, and to the fact that we live next to the United States and so on. It must be a well balanced stimulus policy. It must be done in consultation and in co-operation with private business, trade unions, consumers' groups and so on.
Furthermore, we cannot continually look to the United States for programs to borrow. Canada is not the United States. As a matter of fact, if we were to judge Canada on economic bases alone, Canada would not exist. If we simply decided whether Canada was worth-while in economic terms, we would decide that it would not be, that we should join the United States; we would probably be better off economically if we were part of the United States. However, long ago, in 1867 and before, we decided for political reasons that we did not want to be Americans. We decided that we wanted to pay the political price to be Canadians which, as all of us know in the House, requires subsidies, cross-subsidies, building national railways, the CBC and airlines, to bring together the thin ribbon of population which extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific. That is Canada, that very thin ribbon of population of about 25 million people living next to one of the largest and
most powerful countries in the world. We cannot judge Canada in economic terms alone or simply think of it in economic terms. We have to balance the economic and the political, and the political means that there must be government intervention in the right measure to ensure that our economy works vis-a-vis the American economy and the economies of the other trading blocs in the world such as the European community, Japan and so on. Our survival in this country, our survival politically, economically, socially and culturally, depends upon the right amount of intervention by Canadian Governments.
The greatest years of prosperity in Canada were those years when the Government played an active role with the private sector. It was hot those years when the Government was absent or when the Government withdrew. The years we had the least unemployment and the greatest growth was when there was a proper partnership between Government and the private sector.
In arguing for a certain amount of stimulation, I am not arguing for over-regulation, undue centralization or waste. Not at all. We can have stimulus; intervention into the economy without undue regulation, without undue centralization and waste. These are not necessary. These were not necessary in the past when we had great years of economic boom in Canada.
I have been critical of the Government's policy. The Government seems to say, if we believe the speeches of the Minister of Finance and other economic Ministers in the Government, that to a great extent the deficit is responsible for unemployment and, therefore, to attack the deficit the Government should withdraw from programs and thereby stimulate the economy. If it withdraws, the Government argues, the private sector will pick up things and produce the jobs which are required. 1 do not support that policy. I do not think it will work.
They may say in response that our policies did not work either, and they have said that. I do not agree. Our policies were not perfect, but I would argue that they worked better and eventually would have brought more success to solving these problems than their policy. We believe in stimulating the economy and we believe in goals.
Let us look at the programs which were set up under previous Liberal Governments. There was the establishment of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, which was transformed into DRIE. There were the policies of the Department of Supply and Services to ensure that through the purchasing policy of the Government we stimulated employment in different parts of the country. There were transportation policies to double track the railways, and there were housing policies. All these things were in conjunction with the creation of jobs and the stimulation of the economy. I could continue to list the type of programs we put into effect- LEAD, the job corp, career access, Canada Works and so on. Liberal Governments have always made a very substantial commitment to job stimulation.
As an example I should like to refer to a report which talked about the period from 1980 to 1985. It indicated that the
April 16, 1985

Government's vigorous response to the need for direct employment action was reflected in the total spending figures for the five fiscal years ending March 31, 1985. For direct job creation in that period, $3.8 billion was spent, rising from $310 million per year in 1980-81 to $1.2 billion in 1984-85. That shows a Liberal commitment to direct job creation. With respect to human resources training, that is training and retraining programs, $5 billion was spent during that period, rising from $800 million to $1.2 billion per year over the same period of time. The total for direct job creation and human resources training under Liberal Governments over the past five years comes to $8.5 billion.
They say that our programs did not work. I admit that all things are relative, but in the years when Mr. Trudeau was Prime Minister from 1968 until he resigned last year, three million jobs were created. There were 40 per cent more Canadians employed in 1984 than there were in 1968. That compares with the other six leading countries of this world which only had an increase of 13 per cent. During that period in Canada, our labour force grew at twice the rate of the six largest OECD countries. Even in the year coming out of the recession, in 1983, there were 400,000 new jobs created, although the labour force in that year grew 58 per cent faster than in the United States.
My point is that through stimulative programs, the problem was being attacked. It was being attacked despite very complex and difficult problems, despite a very fast growing labour force. We could all be more tolerant of the Conservatives and more sympathetic to their position today if they had been honest during the election campaign, if they had been frank during the election campaign and admitted at that time, as they are doing now, that the problems are complex and difficult, that in a free economy, in a free society there are no quick fixes. During the election campaign they had all the answers. I refer again, because I think the Canadian people must be reminded of this, to the statement of the Prime Minister on July 5 in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, when he said:
You are going to see tens upon tens of thousands of jobs being created just as quickly as a new Government can be sworn in.
We know how ridiculous that statement was. It was not honest. It was not a frank assessment of the economic situation in Canada. The Canadian people have to be reminded of that. As I said a few minutes ago, we would be more tolerant today of the problems and approaches of the Government if it had been frank during the election campaign.
There are some who believe that if you do stimulate the economy to create the jobs, you will bring back inflation and that inflation will get out of hand. I want to indicate that that is not necessary. Several countries have dealt with both problems. It is not a question of dealing either with inflation or unemployment. You can deal with both at the same time. I will refer to some other countries with which we trade.
Supply
In Japan in 1983, the unemployment rate was 2.7 per cent and the inflation rate was 1.8 per cent. There was quite considerable success on both counts. In Austria, the unemployment rate was 4.5 per cent and the inflation rate 3.8 per cent, in Norway there was 3.3 per cent unemployment and a 7.1 per cent inflation, and in Sweden there was 3.5 per cent unemployment and a 9.2 per cent inflation.
The point is that you can do both. I believe this should be done through setting goals, establishing stimulative programs, making our Canadian industry as efficient and competitive as possible to compete with those countries, by having the proper programs for retraining and mobility and by making adjustments in our work time schedule. That means shorter work weeks, longer holidays, incentives for early retirement and so on.
There are a lot of jobs out there. Last year before the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, the Canadian Council on Social Development indicated to us that it alone had discovered 300,000 jobs in its area of concern which had to be created but were not being created because there was not enough financing to put those jobs on line.
The Government has not done very much. It put into place the Canada Works Program for this winter. That was a Liberal program. We congratulate it. It was the right thing to do. The Government put Challenge '85 in place for next summer. That is a poor copy of the Summer Works Program of last year. Aside from that, it has done nothing. The statement in Regina in February at the First Ministers' Conference was a lot of promises and a lot of proposals, but they have not been put into effect. They have not been implemented. There is no action yet, only discussion and study.
I was very disappointed with the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). I wanted to ask her a question on this, Mr. Speaker, but you did not recognize me. She praised the members of the New Democratic Party for their task force. I agree that it was a very good idea. At the same time, in attempting to be very partisan, she said that the Conservatives believe in consultation, the NDP believe in consultation, but the Liberals obviously do not. I want to put on record again the consultation that took place in the last Parliament with respect to unemployment.
The task force, of which I was Chairman and of which the Hon. Member from Calgary was Vice-Chairman, entitled Employment Opportunities for the '80s, heard over 342 groups and witnesses all across this country. It was a very strong consultative process. Then there was the task force on skilled development, the program Paid Educational Leave, the task force on major capital projects, the task force "In the Chips" regarding technology and employment, the task force on labour market development, the House of Commons committee on profit sharing. I could go on and on.
I will conclude by saying that we need goals and stimulus. What we need in this country is a six and five program for unemployment and to put behind it the same political will as

April 16, 1985
Supply
we had behind the six and five program for inflation. We will see unemployment come down and come down quickly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments?


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Speaker, can my seatmate give us more details about the efforts that were made during the time of the former Government to have effective consultation?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are other questions and comments for the Hon. Member, if he would like to take them after his short reply to his seatmate.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, this makes up for the fact that I could not put a question to the Minister because she is not here now. I mentioned that 56 per cent of Canadians think that unemployment is the major problem in this country, and we have only two Ministers in the House. The Minister only listened to part of the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member has been around here long enough to know that he should not mention who is in the House and who is not. If he would like to answer his seatmate's comment, I would appreciate it.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the direction given by the Speaker. I hope that that direction will be followed on all sides.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: You can be assured it will be.


William Warren Allmand: There is very little interest shown by the Government in the problem which Canadians think is the most important. When the Minister was making her speech, 1 felt that she was very unfair in trying to indicate that the Liberal Party was not interested in consultation. That is why I wanted to put on record the many consultative processes, the many task forces, the many commissions dealing with employment that were set up and operated in the last Parliament. In fact, there were eight task forces established right after the election in 1980, all of them dealing with economic questions.


Mr. Hudon:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question.
First of all, the Hon. Member referred to "Challenge '85" as a poor copy of the Canada Works programs, but when he got onto the subject of statistics, he mentioned the enthusiastic response of the public and private sectors and of communities across the country. I think there is a contradiction here.
Second, regarding the new approach taken in Regina and what the critics have to say about it, I think that what happened in Regina is that for the first time the Federal Government and the provinces were able to agree on six new ways to create jobs.
We believe in consultation too, and consultations were in fact conducted across the country by the Minister. The New Democratic Party also held consultations and came up with some very good reports. However, this was in response to a formal request from all organizations, including Chambers of Commerce, and these programs are going to be implemented next September. Challenge '85 has already given us some idea of what we can look forward to, and I do not see why we should not give this new program a chance to prove itself. 1 think there is indeed a contradiction in all this.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, with respect to Challenge '85, the Minister announced certain figures in which she claims great success for the program. She says it has already created so many jobs. I want to wait and see if those jobs are in fact created because I do not see that happening in my riding. In my riding, there seems to be more or less what we had last year. We will wait and see.
Just before Easter, a question was put to the Minister of Employment and Immigration by a Conservative Member regarding how many applications were granted in the private sector under Challenge '85. The Minister rose and said that the answer was 29,000. We immediately phoned her office and asked how many jobs were created under Challenge '85 through municipalities and community organizations. A representative in the Minister's office told us that that was not public information and that we could not receive that information. I replied by saying that a Conservative Member had risen and asked the Minister how many jobs were created in the private sector to which she responded right away by saying 29,000. I asked why she could not tell us how many were created through municipalities and community groups. I was told that it could not be done. Later on, the Minister came up with a global figure of how many jobs would be created under Challenge '85. We will wait and see how many jobs are created and we will wait and see where they are created.
There are two criteria on which we can judge this program. One is the number of jobs that are created and the other is the other goals it sets for itself; whether or not those goals will do something to help the advancement of the careers of young people and the quality of those jobs with respect to the communities. I know that a lot of the groups that were being helped last year like associations for the blind and daycare centres are being left out this year. They are not receiving the same funding. They are getting a smaller slice of the pie this year than they did last year.
Companies that make toilet seats or ice cream cones are getting a bigger share of the pie than groups that are helping the impoverished, the lame, the crippled and the aged. While I am not against that, I am opposed to the fact that there is not a greater share of the program for the community groups. We will wait until the program is over to judge whether or not it has been a success. We will be back here next fall and we will see then the results of the program.
April 16, 1985


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I was happy to hear the Liberal Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. All-mand) say that he would like to make his judgments on the basis of a completed program. I think we can do that already with regard to the Liberal administration. In his presentation to the House, the Hon. Member spoke of the task force on employment opportunities which he headed. He mentioned that the members of the New Democratic Party who were on that task force supported the goal of full employment and that he and others who were on that task force also supported the goal of full employment. He made passing reference to the fact that Conservative Members on that task force did not do so.
The question we must ask ourselves is, what did the Liberal Government do with that recommendation? Did the Liberal Government, through a Throne Speech or a piece of legislation, say that full employment was its goal? Did the former Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), ever make that his goal? Did the former President of the Treasury Board, the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), ever say that that was the goal of the Government? Did any of the people who share the front benches with the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East who were Cabinet Ministers so few months ago ever say that full employment was their goal? The Hon. Member will have a chance to respond, but I think the answer to each and every one of those questions is no, it was never a Liberal commitment to have full employment. What is the position of their Party now? Could the Hon. Member tell us that?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is quite correct. The Government never accepted that recommendation in the period following the report. But I have continued to press for it. As a matter of fact, I pointed out that Liberal Governments in the past had accepted it. I described the situation in the period of 1945 to 1956 and then in the period from 1964. Previous Liberal Governments under Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Pearson accepted the goal and almost achieved it. They had 3 per cent unemployment in the period following 1950 and they had 3.8 per cent unemployment in the period of time under Mr. Pearson.
I continue to press for that goal because, as I pointed out, if a Government, whether it be a Liberal or an NDP Government, sets that as its goal, it can be achieved. When we set the six and five program as our goal for inflation and made that our highest priority, it was achieved. To me, the proof is there that if the political will is there, it can be done.
I am confident that through the renewal of our Party, we are going to accept that goal. There are many people here today who agree with me. I cannot tell the Hon. Member that that is the official Party line yet, but I am telling him that that is the way to go.
By the way, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, when he was Minister of Employment and Immigration, put out a paper in 1983 called Perspectives on Employment in which he used other terminology which went in that direction. I thought that it was a step in the right direction but it did not
Supply
go as far as I would have liked. However, we are now in the process or restoring and renewing ourselves and I am sure that that is the direction we must go. It is certainly-


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


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, everyone begins by saying that it is a pleasure to take part in a debate such as this one. In fact, it is not. The truth of the master is that I would much rather that there was no necessity for a debate such as this, that the Government had brought forward proposals that had begun to address the problems of those who are unemployed and that it had started to talk about the needs of those who have been neglected for 10, 20 or 30 years.
Let me first focus upon the issue about which we are speaking. We are talking about a motion that calls upon the Government to bring in immediately stimulative proposals to reduce unemployment by a minimum of 2.5 per cent within the next 12 months. We based our need for putting this motion forward on the fact that the Government has failed to live up to its commitment to make job creation its number one priority. Instead of living up to that commitment, the Government has pursued cut-backs which have in fact led to unemployment in three out of the last four months. That is what we are debating here today. We are debating whether or not the Government has in fact lived up to the commitments that it made prior to the 1984 election.
I believe any fair-minded individual looking at the record of the Government could not help but come to the conclusion that the Government has failed miserably to live up to its commitment. In fact, one could not help but come to the conclusion that at the time the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that if the Tories were elected, they would immediately create tens of thousands of new jobs, that commitment was made without the benefit of the support of the Prime Minister's colleagues, without the understanding of the problems of Canada and in fact was made simply for the purpose of achieving for the Conservative Party additional votes at the polls on a promise it never intended to keep and which has been cast aside.
In her comments, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) said that we have to have confidence in Canada's future. I do not disagree with that. I think we have to have confidence. There is no other land with such an abundance of resources as Canada. There is no other land in the world that has available to it the kind of access that we have to the markets of the world, should we choose to use it. Over many, many years, however, the difficulty has been that Canada's economic infrastructure has not been permitted to pursue the markets of the world in an attempt to enhance the manufacturing capacity of this country. It has not been permitted to manufacture products for world distribution. It was denied that opportunity by virtue of the fact that, to a large extent, Canada's employers are branch plants of American and European employers who have no interest in allowing the Canadian economy to grow and compete with the parent
3760

April 16, 1985
Supply
companies' home bases. That has been one of the fundamental problems that has confronted Canada and therefore confronted the need to develop an over-all economic strategy that would involve the major component parts of the economy including the major manufacturers. That has been one of the inhibiting factors to Canada's realization of a long-term goal that we could and should be a major part of the economic thrust of the world. We cannot begin to deal with Canada's fundamental problems until we begin to deal with the basic structure of the manufacturing sector. We must create policy which will encourage those in the manufacturing sector to realize both the domestic requirements and the international potentials. They must be freed from the shackles which have been imposed upon them by Governments and the administrative head offices of their enterprises.
The Minister asked us to deal with facts. I would like to deal with some of the facts as I see them.
The first fact is that there are 1.3 million people unemployed today. There is nothing being done by the Government to move in an attempt to create for those people-many of whom are long-term unemployed-the opportunity to get back to work.
The second fact is that unemployment has risen in three of the last four months. It is a fact that job creation, both private and public, has been inadequate in Canada for the last five years. It is a fact that this Government, by virtue of its economic statement in November, moved to eliminate jobs in Canada.
It is a fact that the youth unemployment program which was brought forward by the Government had, as a major component, the involvement of the private sector. However, companies in the private sector in many cases were in the position in which they had already laid off people and were unable, even if they had been willing, to participate and to create the employment which we require.
It is a fact that unemployment among those who are disabled in Canada is now running upward of 60 per cent of those who would be eligible to become employed. In looking at those numbers we must bear in mind that 10 per cent of our population falls into the category of being disabled.
It is a fact that private initiative in Canada has been lagging since the middle 1970s. It is a fact that this Government moved to remove $1 billion from the pockets of the taxpayers of Canada in September, 1984. The effect of that move was devastating on consumers, consumer-oriented manufacturers, and those who provide the services in almost every community in Canada.
It is a fact that not one program was brought forward by the Government which was specifically aimed at meeting the problems of those people who fall into the category of being between the ages of 55 and 65. Those people have given years and years of hard work in an attempt to hold their families together and build society, but not one program has been aimed at assisting them. Now they find that the plant or
factory in which they worked, the mine, the office or the store by which they were employed no longer requires their services. There is not a single community in Canada which does not provide an adequate example of people who have spent a lifetime working in the community, building and developing the resources in that community, who now discover, as a result of the economic downturn, that they have been cast out as if they were trash. Not one program from this Government has been aimed specifically at trying to combat that problem.
It is a fact that there is not a special municipal project oriented as an employment-type program worth its name. We could visit any community and ask the local mayor, council and local community groups if there are not projects which are both necessary and could be proceeded with quickly if the funding were available. Every community which I have visited,-whether it be in the Yukon where I was last weekend, southern Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia or the Maritime Provinces-without exception, has projects which are both necessary and could be proceeded with quickly if the funding were made available. But this Government has failed to come forward with the necessary funding. It is clear that money spent on projects in local communities would enhance the value of Canada.
If a new sewage, sanitation or disposal plant were built in a community, it would enhance the value of the community and, therefore, the value of the country as a whole. There could be a major road rebuilding program which would enhance the value of a community and, therefore, the country as a whole. The money which would be spent on those kinds of projects would remain in Canada. The employment which would be created from those kinds of expenditures would be employment at the local level for people who are now unemployed and who ought to be working. The materials which would be used in undertaking those kinds of projects would come from Canada, would be manufactured by Canadians, and would be put in place by Canadians. Therefore, we in this country would derive 100 per cent of the benefit. It is a fact that this Government refused to move forward on that front in order to try to meet the needs of the communities.
It is a fact that there has been no emphasis placed by this Government on the problems of single-industry towns. We could go to the Eastern Townships of Quebec and, without exception, we would see that town after town is a single-industry based town. Those single industries are now under tremendous pressure in many cases. Of course, the most recent case occurred in Windsor, and it took the Prime Minister himself to intervene, to go in with money after the opposition Parties had pressured the Government to do that. It could have been done a month or two months previously, but it had to be held off so the Prime Minister could get the maximum benefit from the announcement. Those people sat in despair. They were concerned about their futures. They recognized that everything for which they had worked was in jeopardy. But this Government waited until the Prime Minister had his hair cut and put on a new suit before the statement was made. The statement ought to have been made months before.
April 16, 1985

It is a fact that there has been absolutely no resource sector priorization. The forest industry, which is the backbone of so many communities across Canada, is an example. Where is the money for the continuing requirements of the forest industry? When has the Government said that it would move on that front in order to put the tens of thousands of people, who have been unemployed for the better part of the last two years, back to work? The Government has failed to come forward with a single program to combat that particular problem, regardless of whether it exists in British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec or the Maritimes.
It is a fact that this Government seems to be determined to foist on to the backs of the working people the tremendous pressures which flow from the economic mismanagement of years of Liberal administration at the federal level and years of Conservative administration at the provincial level. This Government is unable or unwilling to meet the demands of establishing a clear economic path for Canada which would satisfy our needs in the long run, while, at the same time, providing the necessary support for the people who are being asked to carry the enormous burdens of unemployment during this, hopefully, short-run period of economic uncertainty. And the facts go on.
It is a fact, for example, that $1.5 billion could be found for the multi-national oil companies by this Government but it could not find the necessary hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to meet the demands and requirements of other equally important parts of Canada's economy. It is a fact that when the Canadian Commercial Bank went under, the Government could find $60 million from a Budget in which it claimed there was no money available. The Government could find $60 million to bail out the Canadian Commercial Bank, but when the farmers of this country were going bankrupt in record numbers, it could not even find it in its heart to commiserate, never mind finding the money to assist in offsetting the losses which were being incurred. It is a fact that when the small business people of this country were looking to the Government for some assistance when high interest rates were the order of the day-just some months ago-this Government could not find any way to help because, after all, the coffers of the Government were extended to the absolute maximum; there was no more money. But when the multi-nationals needed $1.5 billion, when the Commercial Bank needed $60 million, the Government just reached back, as if it was nothing, took the money out of the bag and said, "There it is, guys. Go to it. You are our friends. The others are not. We'll look after you. The hell with everyone else". That is the Government we are addressing today.
Mir. Gormley: Nonsense!


Ian Deans: The Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley) says that is nonsense. The reason why this Government gets away with these things is that Hon. Members like the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake do not stand in their places and challenge the Govern-
Supply
ment to do what is right rather than what is expedient. In my own community I find that plants are closing. The previous Government funded the take-over of Admiral by Inglis. We asked the previous Government to make some provision for guaranteeing the jobs of those who were already working for Inglis, to take some steps to protect those people from the potential job losses which were evident in the future. The previous Liberal administration did not take the necessary steps. Now I ask the Minister who is in charge of regional economic expansion if he will take some steps, but he tells me he cannot, it is a rationalization process and if those people lose their jobs, that's just too bad. He said it in a nicer way, perhaps, that he does not feel it would be appropriate to intervene in any way.
Why is it not appropriate to intervene in a situation where a company is closing down in one place, opening up in another, and throwing families out onto the street? Why is that not appropriate action for a Government? Why is it not appropriate for the Government to sit down with companies which are closing down simply in order to maximize profits which are already significantly higher than need be? Why is it not appropriate for a Government to sit down and talk to them about their obligation to the community in which they are located? I suggest that that is part of the problem with this Government. It is oriented to bigness, anything that's big, anything to do with millions of dollars and billions of dollars, but when it comes right down to ordinary people who are unemployed and who need some help and someone to stand up for them, where is this Government? It is nowhere to be found. And that is what is wrong with this Government.
As you well know, Mr. Speaker, we presented a whole host of very reasonable suggestions as to how this question could be dealt with. Not only did we ask the Government to spend money wisely and well but we even suggested how the Government might raise the necessary money. We suggested the adjustments which could be made in the expenditure patterns in order to ensure that the money we were saying could be spent, was spent without an inordinate increase in the deficit. But what does the Government do? It stands up and tells us, "We still cannot afford to go ahead with it. It is unfortunate. We feel sorry for the people who are detrimentally affected, but we just can't see a way to raise that money".
Why can Government not raise the money we are suggesting should be raised? Its corporate friends are now being asked to donate a hundred dollars to the Brian Mulroney fund in Quebec so that they can have direct access to the Government. That is why. It is because this Government operates on patronage and patronage alone. It is because this Government does not give a damn about the ordinary individual no matter what it says. That is why this motion is before this House, Mr. Speaker, and that is why this Government has to answer for seven months of neglect of the people whom it said it was going to represent and whom it has failed to represent.

April 16, 1985
Supply


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, my question has two parts. I heard my hon. friend say earlier that we were spending money and were prepared to give money to multinational corporations without really doing an in-depth study. In fact, just two minutes before, we were discussing the case of a municipality, and I am referring to Windsor, Quebec.
I could not agree more with my hon. friend when he says that people should be made to face up to their responsibilities. In the case of Windsor, that is exactly what happened, Mr. Speaker. What is the Government supposed to do when a company which made a profit of $90 or $95 million last year and distributed over $200 million in dividends in the past eight years, turns around and asks the Government for $100 million? The same company did not invest any capital during the last 30 years because it wanted to close the plant, but all of a sudden it found that there were new possibilities on the market. What did the Government do? It looked at the matter from a different perspective and made the company face up to its own responsibilities.
My hon. friend also said that there were no programs for municipalities that are in fact company towns, or programs for the 45 and up age group. He knows perfectly well that in Regina, the federal and provincial governments agreed to set up two of those programs, as part of the six avenues for job creation now being developed as a result of the Regina Conference. We are now working on these programs to have everything ready by next September. Even the report published after the NDP group held its consultations across Canada made it quite clear that the first requirement for setting up a job creation program was to have federal, provincial and municipal authorities working together. That is what we started off doing, and we are going to bring the resulting programs to the country. That is what we are working on, including these two specific programs.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary could tell us what new information became available in Windsor that was not available a month ago. And how would he relate the attitude in Windsor to the attitude taken by the Government to the multi-national oil companies which will take from the federal Treasury of Canada $1.5 billion that they do not need either? They will receive money which can be spent by them to undertake projects that they were already being compensated for through the tax structure. I do not understand how the Government can have this double standard.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question and I will follow it with a comment. I appreciated the speech of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). As many of the Hon. Members in this room would expect, I was interested when he referred-


Mr. Young:: It was an excellent speech.


Rodney Edward Murphy: It was an excellent speech.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Rodney Edward Murphy: I will admit that there are times when he does not make excellent speeches. But in a very serious vein, Mr. Speaker, in the substance of the speech of the Hon. Member he did talk about the need to provide funding for Canadian municipalities. I notice that the mayors of the major municipalities have made the same point which was made in the report of our action group on jobs, that is, that there has to be money in order that those municipalities can provide the waterworks, the sewage, and the infrastructure which is needed in their communities. I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that in Manitoba the provincial New Democratic Party Government has taken that exact approach. There is what is called a Community Assets Program which provides school gyms and the type of infrastructure which is needed in those communities. It provides jobs in the short run and in the long term it provides the assets which are needed for those communities. There is also a parallel program, the Main Street Manitoba Program, which upgrades the community in co-operation and in partnership with the municipalities, the business community and the province. That is the type of program I believe the Member was speaking about.


Ian Deans: Exactly.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The question I have deals with another group. Since tomorrow is the day when the equality provisions of our Constitution come into effect, I think this is significant. The Member who has been involved in this area for many, many years is the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young). I think we should congratulate him for his work two weeks ago in a standing committee of this House in getting the committee to recommend that certain sections of the Elections Act which discriminate against certain classes of mentally handicapped Canadians be eliminated. The question is this. The International Labour Organization passed Convention 159 on Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment for Disabled Persons. In other words, it is a proposal which talks about increasing opportunity and removing discrimination against physically handicapped and other disabled persons. I know that the coalition of provincial organizations concerned with the handicapped has asked Canada to sign that convention and I wonder if he could state the position of the NDP on that issue.


Ian Deans: I will do so very briefly. Not only do we support the signing of the agreement, but we were hoping that perhaps through some negotiation with the Government we might get a unanimous resolution from the House of Commons which would allow the Government to proceed with the full support of everyone to indicate to the ILO and the world that the time has come for discrimination against the disabled to be put to an end. We cannot afford it any more. Not only that, it has been wrong for years, and a succession of Governments have failed to deal with it.
April 16, 1985

So 1 think my colleague from Beaches, together with others in our caucus, will be attempting to put together a support base within the House of Commons within the next two or three days for the resolution we hope the Government will ultimately agree with which will indicate world-wide that we in Canada want an end to all discrimination against people who find themselves in the unfortunate position of being disabled.
[ Translation]


Mr. Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to comment and ask the Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party to stop using their Party's time to complain, because in any case, whatever action the Government will take, it will never satisfy the Members of the New Democratic Party.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) referred earlier to the Government's actions with respect to the multinationals. I think the Hon. Member should not forget that these companies are responsible for a considerable share of this country's productivity and that they are major creators of jobs for Canadian citizens.
1 would also remind the Hon. Member that the report they published recently contains the same information we on the Government side already had through the results of the election on September 4, and that, if his party persists in using this kind of motion to waste the time of the House, they will soon see a 2.5 per cent reduction in their membership, because the people of this country want Government policies, the policies we have explained to Canadians and are now putting into practice.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I understand the situation vis-a-vis the positions of the multinationals.

The problem is simply that the multinationals, for years, and even to this very date, refused to deal with what is in the best interests of Canada. They deal only with what is in the best interest of the multinational itself without ever taking into account the needs of Canada's future growth. Our complaint is not that they exist or that they exist within Canada; our complaint is that there is no regulation or law in Canada which requires them to operate in Canada's best interests.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) asked me why the previous Liberal Government did not accept the recommendation of the task force on employment opportunities for a full employment policy. That recommendation was made by Liberal and NDP Members on that task force. I explained that the Government did not accept that recommendation but, on the other hand, accepted that there should be an expansionary or stimulative policy, and it put a lot of money into employment creation.
In this motion there is no commitment to full employment but a request that the Government reduce unemployment by 2.5 per cent over the next 12 months. I support the motion
Supply
because I think it is a step in the right direction considering the policies of this Government, but does it mean that the NDP also has abandoned a full employment policy?


Ian Deans: I am glad the Hon. Member asked the question. Of course we have not. What we are putting forward right now is an interim policy with the situation as it is right at this moment. It is our opinion that the Government has both the financial and other resources which would allow it to move forward at a pace of about 2.5 per cent a year at the moment in the reduction of unemployment. However, we expect that this will be continued over a number of years and that within three to four years we will find ourselves in a situation where we will be back to the level where we were talking about full employment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, jobs, jobs, jobs. We in the Conservative Party of Canada ran an election campaign on jobs and said we would create jobs. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) has reminded the House that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that as soon as we changed Governments there would be tens of thousands of new jobs. Well, I stand here in this House today with statistics from the first six months of this Government's life which indicate there are 112,000 Canadians working today who would not have had a job under the other Government. When you talk about tens of thousands of jobs, 10,000 into
112,000	goes 11 times; that is 11 times we have kept that promise in the first six months. But we are not satisfied and we will do better and I hope they begin to recognize what we have been doing for this country.
Not only have we created those 112,000 new jobs, which means new taxpayers instead of tax spenders, but let us compare that with the same period of time in 1983 and 1984, September to March. At that time, under the previous Government unemployment in this country went up by 38,000 people. The record of this Government in a comparable period of time in 1984-85 is that of 48,000 fewer unemployed. The total change of 38,000 plus 48,000 is 86,000 jobs, and that is an important statistic.
Let me give you a third statistic which is also important. Ever since this country had the opportunity to throw out the previous Government there has been a change in the participation rate. It has gone up because people have hope. They believed the Prime Minister of this country and the Conservative Members during the election that we would dedicate our efforts to straightening out the economy and create jobs for Canadians. They believed it and have begun to look for work. That is what a participation rate is about, and that rate is up, it will stay up, and we anticipate it will go even higher because we will be creating the jobs which enable people to have the kind of standard of living Canadians deserve, which they are used to and which they must have.

April 16, 1985
1 am just barely getting warmed up, but I see it is one o'clock. 1 believe I will have the floor again at three o'clock and 1 look forward to expanding on my remarks at that time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being one o'clock p.m., 1 do now leave the Chair until two o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, April 17, marks a historic date for Canada's disabled people. As of Wednesday, discrimination based on physical and mental disability will be unconstitutional.
Disabled people in Canada have fought long and hard for a fair chance to do many things most of us take for granted. For example, the simple process of gathering information from newspapers, books, and magazines can be difficult, if not impossible, for a blind person.
Last week 1 had the opportunity of touring, with the Chairman of the Board of the Metropolitan Toronto Library Board, Mr. Irv Sherman, the newly opened Metro Toronto Library Centre for disabled persons. This excellent centre has a variety of information services for disabled people, including a Kurz-weil Reading Machine that actually reads aloud from a printed text in a synthetic voice.
On the eve of the implementation of equality rights, I urge the Government to continue to open the door of opportunity for Canada's disabled people.



FORESTRY


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, there is still no federal-provincial forestry agreement in place in British Columbia in spite of Conservative promises of federal-provincial co-operation and help to the forest industry. While waiting for that agreement to be signed, 2,300 workers in the Canada Works Forestry Program face lay-offs. Last week I met over 100 of these men and women on their last day of work. Funding had run out, and new funds had not been allocated.
These people want to know why negotiations always have to wait until the last minute. As one worker said, maybe if more of the people doing the negotiating lived hand-to-mouth like the workers who depend on the programs, they would not be quite so casual in the way in which they negotiate for new funds.
It now appears that the Department of Employment and Immigration has offered to pay wages, but not overhead, for the program until the end of June. The companies object to paying anything at all, even though their forest lands get the benefit of the work that is being done. We can only ask if this is an example of the much touted "new mood of co-operation" between the Conservative Government and private business. Is this the kind of free enterprise that is going to create jobs for two million out-of-work Canadians?



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the sign reads "Government For Sale". For $100 you can now join the Brian Mulroney Club. Membership will allow you access to your Member of Parliament, as unbelievable as that may seem, but it is not guaranteed that you will find a solution to your problem. Tory organizers expect many members to join within months.
The Government was elected to serve Canadians, not to sell their services. This is the most outrageous of all the atrocities that have been perpetrated by the Conservative Party on the people of Canada. What can we expect next? Tory Members peddling Brian Mulroney's picture for $10 to their supporters in their own constituencies?
To all Tory Members in the House I say that we on this side of the House we do not charge to help the people of Canada. Mr. Speaker, please advise the constituents of other ridings that the Liberals are here to serve everyone, rich and poor alike.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, the issue of unlicensed utility wheat has received considerable press in the past, not only in recent weeks but over the past years. One has only to look at the various strains that have been developed in an attempt to maximize production to be aware of this.
We have seen the introduction of triticale, and the development and licensing of HY320 as examples of this. It was only natural that farmers, who are neighbours in spite of the fact that the Canada-U.S. border separates their farms, would discuss and exchange not only ideas but seed as well. To ignore
April 16, 1985

this fact, and many other problems of agriculture, was a tactic often employed by the previous Liberal administration.
Calling together all interested parties, from growers to grain company officials, particularly those who represent companies co-operatively owned by the producers, demonstrates that the consultative process is alive and well in the Government. We recognize that agriculture is a pillar of the Canadian economy and are trying to provide another option for hard-pressed producers. I commend the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board for his actions, and call on all Members of the House to applaud him for his insight in dealing with this problem.



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow marks the fiftieth anniversary of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, an organization which has become part of the very fabric of the Prairies. Established by a Conservative Government on April 17, 1935, the PFRA was born at a time of unprecedented drought conditions in the rural west. Through its emphasis on long-term planning and conservation, the PFRA helped western agriculture to survive and, later, to prosper. For example, the Palliser triangle, once the infamous dust bowl of the Prairies, is again agriculturally productive, thanks in large part to the PFRA.
Tonight at the University of Manitoba this historic anniversary is being marked with a seminar attended by numerous experts in water and soil conservation who will discuss the organization's past and its future. All this comes at a time when consideration is being given to basic structural changes in the PFRA.
1 commend my colleague, the Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger), for putting forth recommendations which will be considered by the Agriculture Committee in the near future. Apart from these recommendations, Mr. Speaker, agricultural technology and growing public awareness about conservation have created new challenges for this organization.
I am confident that, just as it met its goals in the past, the PFRA will rise to the challenges of the future. I congratulate PFRA officials on this historic occasion. I wish them every success in their deliberations this evening.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to send a warning to all Canadians who are concerned about a growing trend by Governments seriously to misrepresent facts for their own partisan purposes.
In his classic novel 1984 George Orwell presented a chilling portrait of a Government that used the control of language as a means to control its people. It consciously and insidiously twisted and distorted the meaning of words until the resulting language, called newspeak, proclaimed that love was hate, war was peace, and freedom was slavery.
Since the Government was elected a short seven months ago, the proliferation of newspeak has grown to alarming proportions. Nowhere is this more apparent than when it comes to the Government's pronouncements on unemployment. Yesterday's performance by that master of newspeak himself, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), indicates that the level of misrepresentation by the Government has reached new heights.
Yesterday the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) pointed out that the rate of job creation in the last six months is lower than in the previous six months, and that in fact unemployment has increased in three of the last four months. Yet the Prime Minister continues to say that there has been "a rebirth in confidence in the private sector resulting in job creation". There are 65,000 more Canadians unemployed today than when the Prime Minister assumed office. These are the facts, yet the Government will have us believe otherwise.
It is a dangerous practice to deny the truth. One could foresee the day when the Government creates a Minister of Information to tell what is truth and what is not. Canadians do not want their Government to tell them that black is white, or that unemployment is going down when in fact it is going up.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time is expired.



MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, a Tory is a Tory is a very sad story for the City of Hamilton. Just as our tight-lipped Premier was in Hamilton announcing the creation of a measely 10 jobs, the federal Government was refusing to honour its commitment of $2.4 million for the upgrading of the regional incinerator. It would be funny if it were not such a threat to the health of the people of Hamilton. This upgrading is absolutely critical because SWARU has been emitting dioxins into the air breathed by hundreds of thousands of people in the Niagara region. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) can find $1 billion for oil companies, but she cannot find $2.4 million to protect Hamiltonians from cancer causing agents.
This political story does not end here. The regional chairman, who also happens to be a current candidate for the Tories in Ontario, sent a telex to the Ministers involved to say that this funding was critical and the freeze was a severe shock. The candidate sent copies to the Members for Hamilton West (Mr. Peterson) and Lincoln (Mrs. Martin), but skipped right

April 16, 1985
over the riding of Hamilton East where the residents will be most affected by the cut-back.
The Tory candidate thought it was more important to protect the Government than to protect the citizens of Hamilton. She has hidden the truth from the Opposition and shown that her only interest is in protecting fellow Conservatives. The Tories in Ontario have always left Hamilton in the cold, except when it came to foisting schemes of regional government and rapid transit on the people. Now we see that their Ottawa cousins are cut from the same sackcloth.

[ Translation]



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, after having the privilege of accompanying the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) on his recent visit to the Soviet Union, I must say that the Minister did a remarkable job in situations and circumstances that were not always easy.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this trip was, first and foremost, to provide for a better mutual understanding between our two countries, to establish a relationship with the Soviets and to re-establish lines of communications which had been neglected for more than a year.
Mr. Speaker, during our visits to Leningrad, Novosibirsk, Moscow and Kiev, the Secretary of State for External Affairs was always clear and consistent in what he had to say. Although our two countries will always have political differences, we must seek, above all, the points of interest we have in common and maintain a constant dialogue. Mr. Speaker, there are no two countries in this world that are more similar than the Soviet Union and Canada, whether we are referring to climate, or wide open spaces or our economies, which we would do well to develop together.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that the recent visit by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the Soviet Union will, in the months or years to come, provide considerable benefits for Canada, both from the economic and the social and cultural point of view.



CHALLENGE '85 STUDENT EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM-DISTRIBUTION OF APPLICATIONS IN SASKATCHEWAN

Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, Members of Parliament have been advised that they will receive copies of the SEED Program applications involving more than four jobs, for their review. This is so in all Provinces except Saskatchewan where, we are informed, Members will not be consulted, apparently as a result of an agreement made between the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), Conservative Members, and the Conservative Government in that Province. Why the New Democratic Members of Parliament from Saskatchewan were not consulted when this decision was taken requires an explanation that, hopefully, will soon be forthcoming.
Much was made of the wage subsidized career orientation of Challenge '85, which we said would impede job creation given the late announcement of the program. Challenge '85 is now claimed to have produced more jobs than Summer Canada. If that is so, we applaud that fact, but we know that if it is so it results from the absence of criteria to ensure career orientation.
Under the SEED Program, proposals are assessed on a first come, first served basis, with little scrutiny. The program does not have a mechanism to determine if proposals are career oriented or whether full-time workers will be displaced. It should also be noted that the continuous scrutiny that characterized Summer Canada, that is, three visits per project, is not being carried out.
Finally, it should be noted that, contrary to other commitments made by the Government, the SEED Program does not have a requirement that Summer Canada had-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher)



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I would venture to say that no other government Department or Crown corporation has received as much criticism as that levelled against Canada Post Corporation. Increasingly this Crown corporation is being seen as a high-cost, low-efficiency operation.
Canada Post Corporation, which was established in October, 1981, has had nearly four years in order to improve its performance. Its establishment as a Crown Corporation gave the Canadian public expectations of improved service. Instead we are faced with a situation of postal rates continuing to increase while the efficiency of postal services continues to
April 16, 1985

decline. Is there no end to this vicious circle which saps both the federal treasury and the patience of the Canadian public? I believe that it is time to put an end to this unbearable situation.
Both management and labour must recognize that problems exist. They must also discover what these problems are, and arrive at a consensus on how to eliminate them. It serves neither the interests of management nor labour to blame each other for the inefficiency of Canada Post. Both sides are part of the problem, and therefore must also be part of the solution. We in Government can assist in the resolution of this problem by letting it be known that we will no longer allow the status quo to continue. It is time for action, Mr. Speaker.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I and many other Members of this Chamber received a button that we were supposed to wear which referred to equality and most of us did. What surprises me is that the Party circulating the button, at least to me, made no representation about our Party's willingness to support people especially women, in important positions. I have not heard one word from my colleagues on my left about the appointment of that extraordinary Canadian, Dr. Janet Wardlaw, to be the Chairman of the International Development Research Centre. I would be happy if they had opened up and welcomed such a tremendous appointment, Mr. Speaker. Where were you? Where were you?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment, but in her absence, and I think I understand why, I would like to put my question to the Prime Minister.
The Minister of the Environment demonstrated quite clearly yesterday a lack of appreciation of the scope of the environmental disaster that occurred on the Trans-Canada Highway when PCBs were leaked along that highway. More important, the Minister of the Environment demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of federal responsibility for that disaster in attributing the jurisdiction as a provincial one.
Oral Questions
Has the Prime Minister communicated with his Minister of the Environment and asked her whether she is now aware that officials of the Department of the Environment in Edmonton were notified, 48 hours before the PCBs were shipped by Kinetic Ecological Research Group, of the following information: the type of vehicle to be used; the vehicle licence number; the driver's name and address; the type of material and volume of material to be shipped, and the route to be followed?
Will the Prime Minister consult with the Minister of the Environment to ask her to come before this House and admit that under the Environmental Contaminant Act, a federal Act, she has a primary responsibility, not diluted by provincial jurisdiction, for the prevention and cleanup of spills of dangerous chemicals?


Hon. John A. Fraser (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Environment I want to respond to my right hon. friend and advise him that it is a matter of some pride to this Party that that Act, which the right hon. gentleman has just cited, was supported by this Party, and appropriately so, and that regulations under that Act are important. They are indeed part and parcel of that part of federal jurisdiction which is of help in these cases.
As the right hon. gentleman knows, the Department is fully informed of the situation. Consideration is being given to the event that caused this mishap. As the right hon. gentleman also knows, the question of PCB control is incredibly complex. There is divided jurisdiction on it. There are severe problems in terms of obtaining sufficient public support for proper plants for the destruction of these particular contaminants.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Prime Minister has not responded to this question because the extent of this particular situation is wider than he and his Government may suspect.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ONTARIO MINISTER'S STATEMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, let me put a supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who is acting for the Minister of the Environment.


Mr. Nunziata:: Always acting.


John Napier Turner: Does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans agree on behalf of his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, with the statement by her counterpart, the Ontario Minister of the Environment, Mr. Morley Kells, with respect to the potential human fallout as a result of the PCB spill, when he said yesterday:
If you are a rat eating PCBs on the Trans-Canada, you might have some problems.


Mr. Crosbie:: Where is Copps when we need her? Let's get the rat pack.

April 16, 1985
Oral Questions


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, we on this side, and I am sure the Hon. Minister whom I am representing today, would not want to see our animal friends, any more than anybody else, suffer as a consequence of a PCB spill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Axworthy:: The rats are friends of yours, not ours. They belong to the Mulroney club.


John Allen Fraser: Of course I am constrained to say what she might have to say about non-animal rats, but that is another matter completely. I will take the representations of the right hon. gentleman to my colleague. I am sure she can deal with this other aspect of the problem when she is next in the House.


TOXICITY OF PCBS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have known the Hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for a long time, but that answer will give him an F too. I want to ask him, on behalf of his colleague, does she not realize that one kilogram of PCBs would be enough, if taken by fish, to make half a million fish unfit for human consumption. Are the Minister and his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, aware that Dr. Joseph Cummings of the University of Western Ontario, a respected geneticist, has already consulted this morning with several people in northern Ontario complaining of the symptoms of PCB exposure, and has described the statement by the Environment Minister's provincial counterpart, the Hon. Morley Kells, as totally appalling in the circumstances? This is not just a matter of animals. It is a matter of human health. The Minister and his Government had better start to realize what kind of situation they have here.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the questions which are coming from the right hon. gentleman are interesting in terms of their factual content or otherwise. There is no question as to where this Party or the Minister I am representing today stands on the concern and danger of PCBs. However, part of the reason this happened is because the former Government had plenty of time to put proper regulations into effect and did not do so.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


COMPANY'S COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister of the Environment realizes the gravity of the situation today in contrast to yesterday. In her absence I will direct my question to the Minister of Transport. In light of the developments which have taken place, could the Minister reassure the House that he is satisfied the trailer company in
question has complied with regulations and legislation under federal jurisdiction, under his jurisdiction in particular?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the Hon. Member knows, the accident is currently being investigated by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Officials in my Department, and those particularly associated with the transportation of dangerous goods, are collaborating with provincial authorities to determine the cause of the leak and to ensure that all regulations were in fact followed. Of course, upon the completion of that investigation, we will be in a better position to advise the Hon. Member and the House on precisely what took place.


ROLE OF ONTARIO PREMIER
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Now that he has an opportunity to give, at last, some positive leadership in the environment, having given negative leadership so far by slashing the Department so irrationally last November, will he speak to that weak-minded Premier of Ontario and shake him up in terms of his responsibility in looking after the health of the people of Ontario in the affected communities near the Trans-Canada Highway, and take into hand the management of this critical situation?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think we have indicated the great seriousness with which we regard the matter raised quite properly by my right hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, and have given assurances of a full commitment of the resources of the federal Government, in co-operation with the provinces, to deal with it. I think that would be the stand of any Government. It is ours. I do not think, notwithstanding his best efforts, my hon. friend from Davenport assists the Liberal Party in Ontario in its provincial election by attempting to defame an outstanding Canadian, the Premier of Ontario.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think the people of Ontario are looking for leadership. They are going to get it from Premier Miller, not from people who indulge in character assassination like the Hon. Member for Davenport.


REGULATIONS GOVERNING TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport, whose colleague, the Minister of the Environment, wrote me recently to indicate that officials had been working for some years with Transport Canada staff on the transport of dangerous goods, in particular on hazardous wastes and emergencies. While consultation is very nice, we have a PCB spill apparently stretching the length of the Trans-Canada Highway from
April 16, 1985

Kenora to Thunder Bay. Since the Minister of Transport is responsible for the transportation of dangerous goods, I should like to ask him whether further measures are contemplated under that Act. Are systems such as escorts and convoys being looked at? To his knowledge, were all applicable regulations observed in this case?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is correct. There has been consultation and there has been action. As a matter of fact the transportation of dangerous goods regulations have indeed been proclaimed and will take effect on July 1. That is as soon as it is practically possible to put these regulations in place. It has been done in consultation with the industry, and there has been a certain degree of hardship imposed. Nonetheless, that announcement has been made. Naturally, when the regulations become effective, all transportation of dangerous goods in Canada and, indeed, trans-border, will have to conform to those regulations.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. My constituents will not be pleased to know that they have to wait until the tourist season for protection. Frankly, since we have the federal Minister of the Environment and the provincial Minister of the Environment discounting, or taking this situation lightly, will the Minister of Transport provide leadership in the matter of handling toxic substances? Will he assure the House that the situation will be reviewed in light of this experience?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I assure the Hon. Member, and all Hon. Members of the House, that we are taking this issue seriously. We are showing leadership. The fact of the matter is that we accelerated the proclamation of the regulations under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act by several months. That took some convincing, and it took a lot of consultation. As I said earlier, my departmental officials are working very closely with the Department of the Environment for the Province of Ontario to ensure that an adequate investigation is carried out, and to ensure that all necessary precautions were in fact followed and will be followed in the future.


CONTENTS OF TRANSFORMER
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but wonder whether or not Premier Miller gave the Prime Minister that little speech the last time he sat on his knee, or whether the Prime Minister made it up himself.
My question is directed to the Acting Minister of the Environment, the Hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He should know that the transformer in question from which the PCBs were spilt contained 384 gallons of PCBs. We know where 100 gallons of those 384 gallons are, because they are in
Oral Questions
the storage tank of the truck. What we do not know is how much of the remaining 284 gallons is still in the transformer, if any. Given the serious consequences of having those 284 gallons spilt along the TransCanada Highway, possibly from Montreal to Kenora, will the Minister now undertake to determine in Kenora how much of the remaining 284 gallons of PCBs is still in that transformer, if any? That will point to just how serious this spillage may be in fact.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister 1 can tell the House that this still is, of course, taken very seriously. 1 can also tell the House that the regulations that my friend, the Minister of Transport, referred to, are coming in on July 1, earlier than they otherwise would have been because my friends on the other side, when they were in Government, had not brought the regulations up to date. I can also tell the Hon. Member that, in consultation and working with all of the people who are involved in this and who can give any information, the matter is being taken seriously. As soon as a more factual report can be given to this House, it most certainly will be given.


REQUEST THAT BLOOD ANALYSIS TESTS BE CONDUCTED
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, when environmental officials are saying the only danger is to rats, and we do not know where over 284 gallons of PCBs are, I do not think it is being taken seriously. 1 think they ought to wake up.


John Carnell Crosbie: Tobin for leader.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: I don't have your ambitions, John. Only you have a blind ambition to be leader. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I am trying hard. A respected geneticist at the University of Western Ontario this morning heard from people who are apparently suffering the symptoms of PCB exposure. Will the Minister instruct, along with his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, that a mobile unit be put in place to allow PCB blood analysis tests to be done where requested? That facility is currently not available in Kenora and people are reportedly suffering from what appear to be symptoms of PCB exposure.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the Hon. Member, as the Prime Minister has already stated, that if there is anything that the federal Government can do to help, in either the management of this situation or in the area of health, we will not study it but, rather, we will act.

April 16, 1985
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR MORATORIUM ON TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Given what the Minister had to say earlier, could the Minister declare a moratorium on the transportation of dangerous substances such as PCBs until July 1, so that no more transportation of these dangerous substances will occur until the proper regulations are in place?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party will have to get its act together. I brought in a piece of legislation yesterday having to do with the Aeronautics Act, concerning safety and security in the air. The chief spokesman for the New Democratic Party said they were not going to pass this legislation until they saw the regulations. One of the reasons the regulations had been so long in being proclaimed and formulated with respect to the transportation of dangerous goods is that that Party wanted to see the regulations at the time that the transportation of dangerous goods legislation was being passed. It has taken some time. Quite frankly, notwithstanding the fact that the transportation of dangerous goods regulations are coming into effect on July 1, many truckers are conforming to the regulations because they are now made public and they will be enforced effective July 1.


DEBATE ON LEGISLATION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I deliberately asked the question in a way that would not provoke that kind of defensive reaction. All I asked the Minister was whether he would consider a moratorium until July 1. I did not ask him to distort the facts of the debate around the transportation of dangerous goods legislation. I spoke on that Bill. I remember that we passed it quickly. We did not ask to see the regulations before we let it go through.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the reason why I responded in the way I did was simply the fact that in an earlier answer I indicated that the Department of the Environment of the Province of Ontario is investigating the cause of the accident. Our officials are working very closely with the Department of the Environment of Ontario and monitoring the situation. Whatever corrective steps need to be taken, will be taken. 1 thought the Hon. Member would appreciate the fact that surely we should ascertain all the facts before we take the kind of hurried action that he is recommending to the House today.


FUTURE OF GULF CANADA CORPORATION
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It
follows from the take-over of Gulf America by Chevron. Will the Minister assure the House that all necessary steps are being taken to ensure that Canadian buyers are found for Gulf Canada, which is now 25 per cent Canadian owned?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question of the Hon. Member for Trinity, as she probably knows the Chevron people have given until the end of this month for Canadians to come forth and make a bid on the Gulf shares that they own, approximately 60 per cent of Gulf Canada. I understand that active negotiations are taking place with at least one Canadian buyer.


PRICE OF GASOLINE IN ONTARIO
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I trust that the Government has indeed learned from Texaco Canada's recent take-over of Canadian Reserve Oil and Gas Limited, which resulted in $980 million leaving Canada. Clearly this benefit to foreign producers must be paid for by Canadian consumers. My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Will the Minister now admit that Ontario consumers are facing price increases at the gas pump and in their homes?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member cannot have it two ways, to say that they do not want any of these companies to go to non-resident companies and on the other hand to say that they have to be sold to Canadians. If they are sold to Canadians, the money goes out of the country. You cannot have it both ways. I say to the Hon. Member, in response to the specific question on the Budget, she knows when the Budget will be coming. She will get an answer at that time.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It has been reported that a Mr. Guy Dionne, representing the Conservative Party in the Province of Quebec as the chief recruitment officer for something called the Club Mulroney, has indicated to businessmen in Quebec that if they will pay $100 to the PC fund, their concerns will be given speedy consideration by the Cabinet. Is that true?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, what is true is that Brian Mulroney clubs are springing up all over the place.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: It's like the daffodils on Parliament Hill.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
April 16, 1985


Martin Brian Mulroney: It just is not the same unless you hear that voice from Bay Street representing those international, multinational corporations. 1 tell you, they must get a big hosing when billing time comes around with an employer like that. The whole Quebec Bar is asking why he doesn't practise in Quebec. I read of the existence of this latest group of clubs. The only clubs, as my hon. friend knows, that would be authorized are those pursuant to the federal statutes which deal with the financing of federal parties. If you contribute to the Conservative Party, you get no more advantage than any other Party, except you get a marvelously good feeling.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CLUB MEMBERSHIP TERMS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, part of the good feeling is not having to listen to the blarney. My question, however, is important for public purposes. Is it true that if businessmen in the Province of Quebec join the Brian Mulroney club and contribute $100 to the PC Canada fund that they will be given speedy consideration of their concerns by the Cabinet and the Government of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: No.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister prepared to tell those people who have joined the club on that understanding that they will not be given such consideration?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, unlike the Liberal Party, for which one had to knock on special doors, all Canadians receive special consideration from this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: No Party led the Conservative Party in contributions from small donors in the last number of years. The reason we got 56 per cent of the unionized vote in this country is that unionized people are tired of this kind of attitude coming from the NDP. They want leadership; they want a happy face; and they want an Ian Deans club!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Solicitor General, who is absent today, will be joining the Brian Mulroney club and not the Ian Deans club, for his own good. In his absence, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice
Oral Questions
when the RCMP report into the Hatfield affair will be made public.
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the report is not yet completed. When it is completed, the Minister will decide whether or not it should be made public.


ROLE OF SOLICITOR GENERAL
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, in view of this very unacceptable and long delay in dealing with important questions, which include the allegations of the Premier of New Brunswick against members of the RCMP, and considering that the Solicitor General himself is implicated in the Hatfield affair, does the Minister of Justice not think that it is about time for him to take charge of this investigation, make sure that there is a full investigation, and make sure that a report is indeed made to the Canadian people?
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the Government does not propose to interfere in the administration of the RCMP. They are well capable of looking after themselves with their integrity that has been recognized now for 100 years. It is time for the hon. gentleman to stop trying to make political capital out of other people's misfortunes.


MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Tom Hockin (London West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and I address it to him urgently. I returned from my riding with countless requests from the medical community in London and elsewhere expressing concern about Medical Research Council funding. With rapidly approaching deadlines for research projects in the medical field, I must ask the Minister when he will give the House his response to the Medical Research Council's request that its funding be restored to at least last year's level.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member. As he is aware, there is a five-year plan, and funding above the "A" base had not been provided for by the former administration. I was hoping to make an announcement in the House today, but it is an Opposition Day. I will be making an announcement later today indicating that not only will we restore the funding to last year's level but we will increase the level of funding to some $158 million, well above the "A" base and well above last year's level.

April 16, 1985
Oral Questions


THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Tomorrow Canadian women will celebrate their achievement of equality under the Charter of Rights. As the Minister knows, the real fight now begins as cases are tested before the courts. Does the Minister agree with Judge Bertha Wilson who has said that, to be fair and effective, cases which are to test equality under the Charter must be selected independently of political bias and government intervention?


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker-sorry, Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, 1 was thinking of Madam Justice Wilson who was a year behind me in law school but has now outpaced me in legal knowledge. The short answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, is yes, but I know that there is a hook to come so let's get on with it.


FUNDING OF WOMEN'S CASES
Margaret Anne Mitchell: You got it, Mr. Minister, and here it is. As the Minister knows, Charter words are meaningless and women are really not interested in hearing words. What they want is access to legal services so they can actually achieve equality. Tomorrow, will the Minister of Justice, leading in the forefront with all the fanfare he wishes, celebrate equality by designating major funding for an independent endowment rather than a government Department, through a credible organization such as the Legal Action and Education Fund, so that women may fight equality cases under the Charter?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter that is currently under discussion in the Government, and particularly in the Department of the Secretary of State. As the Hon. Member knows, it is the Secretary of State who is the Minister of the Government in charge of matters relating to women. A decision will be made later. I will discuss it with the Hon. Member tomorrow when we attend the cocktail party that will be held in celebration of the April 17 equality day.


REFUGEES
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and concerns the decision not to reappoint Florence Bird. Yesterday, in answer to my question on Florence Bird, the Minister explained that she was looking for fields of
expertise in new areas of refugee concerns. In view of the fact that the report of Rabbi Gunther Plaut will contain the important recommendations on which to make these new areas of policy known, and in view of the fact that the Minister herself claimed only a few days ago that she did not have knowledge of the contents of the report, can she now tell the House where she obtained the information leading her to believe that Mrs. Bird did not have this new area of expertise?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member has had very little to do with the refugee community throughout this country or indeed, I gather, in any other country.


John Carnell Crosbie: He is a refugee.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I would like to explain to him that the situation in the world, with the migration of peoples coming from countries where there has been increased instability, has caused a very different set of circumstances here in this country. People in the legal profession, people in community organizations, and people in religious organizations, have been concentrating on certain areas in recent years. I would like to tell the Hon. Member that there is a great deal of expertise to be tapped in this country, and I can assure him that that will be done.


QUALIFICATIONS INQUIRY
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Canadian public and all refugees will be glad to hear the remarks made by the Attorney General and Minister of Justice. Since Amnesty International, the InterChurch Committee, and other refugee organizations have all supported the reappointment of Florence Bird to the Status Advisory Committee, and since Mrs. Bird has been involved in the evolution of refugee policy all along, could the Minister now tell us in which field of expertise Mrs. Bird is lacking?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that there are many people in this country who have specific expertise to bring to this humanitarian cause. I would also assure him that it will be much easier for this Government to determine who those individuals are than it is for the Liberal Party to choose a national director of its Party.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Recent press reports have suggested that the Canada Post Corporation has resisted an
April 16, 1985

independent investigation of allegations which were made by Mr. Ad Varma. Are the reports accurate, and does the Government still have confidence in the Corporation's President, Mr. Michael Warren?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the fact that there was a difference of view between an employee and the Corporation some many months ago. I understand there are in excess of 60,000 employees in the Corporation and this was one who was seeking redress. Both the Corporation and the Minister-who performs so brilliantly, not only in running the Revenue Department, but in being responsible for the Corporation as well-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Beatty:: I have a supplementary.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Minister has a supplementary.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Both the President, and the Minister, in whom we have absolute confidence, have been dealing with this issue with a view to effecting the proper solution. We expect that will be the case, and we hope it is. There has been an allegation of injustice, and if that is the case we would want to correct it.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion which concerns the reopening of Forex in the Abitibi region. Considering the fact that re-establishing this major industry, thus creating thousands of jobs, will depend on the participation of the Governments of Quebec and Canada in this project, is the Minister now prepared to grant the $2 million subsidy for production investment requested by Forex?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member's question, as he probably knows, our Department is analysing a proposal which was put to us by Forex. It involves the joining together of five sawmills in the area. We are giving it not only immediate attention but, to the best of our ability, we are trying to facilitate the move which is being contemplated by the promoters of the deal.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Province of Quebec is apparently awaiting a decision from the federal Government, can the Minister
Oral Questions
assure the House that the decision will be positive and that the Government of Canada will play its role in terms of re-establishing an important regional industry, an industry in which working people will have a share, and an industry which will directly create 1,000 jobs in the Abitibi region, which is one of the worst economic and most devastated areas in the Province of Quebec?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member must bear in mind that Quebec's information was received by Ottawa yesterday. As I have indicated, we are analysing the proposal and, in due course, we will give the decision. I do not think the Hon. Member would expect me to give a negative or positive decision today, one day after we received the facts.


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, and it concerns the Japa-nese-Canadian redress issue. Unfortunately, talks between the Government and that community are at a standstill. As a result, the Japanese Canadian Association has petitioned, telephoned, written, and telexed the Prime Minister's office urging and asking for a meeting with him so that a mutually agreeable proposal can be obtained. Therefore I would ask the Prime Minister why he has consistently refused to meet with the leadership of the national association so that the solution can be obtained. What is he afraid of?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, before the Leader of the Opposition bursts into frenetic applause, let me place this in context.
On the final day that the former Liberal Prime Minister sat in this seat, I rose as Leader of the Opposition and I asked, on behalf of the Conservative Party and all Canadians, that redress be given to the Japanese-Canadian community. The Liberal Leader and Prime Minister said no, and all the Liberals cheered. That was a black day for the Liberal Party, and it was a black day for civil liberties in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: That's not true.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is what happened. Since then, the Minister of State for Multiculturalism has made significant offers to the Japanese-Canadian community, and my door remains open to them at all times.


William Warren Allmand: Tell the truth.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will tell the truth. It was so bad that you stood there and you applauded the former Prime Minister and the then-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

April 16, 1985
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order.


Martin Brian Mulroney: You should be ashamed of yourselves.


REQUEST FOR MEETING WITH PRIME MINISTER
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I think the Japanese community watching this Question Period would be just disgusted to see the partisan response of this Prime Minister. He is in power now and he has to do something about it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear! hear!


Sergio Marchi: The truth of the matter is that you are holding a gun to the community's head and saying: "If it's not my way, it is no way". They are not satisified with the response of your Government.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to assure the House and the Japanese community that he would have at least five minutes of his schedule to sit down with them so that a sense of understanding and dialogue can prevail, as he so often said during the campaign, before the campaign, and immediately after the campaign?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely my point. The present Leader of the Opposition and the present Prime Minister stood together against the Liberal Party of the day last June when it refused justice and redress for Japanese-Canadian. Those are the facts. That is what the Japanese-Canadian community saw. They saw the Liberal Party saying no, and they saw the Conservative Party saying: "Yes, we want to be of assistance". They saw the Minister of State for Multiculturalism bringing in a serious proposal and saying: "We would like to sit down and possibly do more". What we do reject is the categoric rejection of decency in minority rights as espoused by the Liberal Prime Minister who sat in the House that day. It was a black day for liberalism and a black day for Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NEGOTIATION OF SETTLEMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I read what the right hon. gentleman said when he was Leader of the Opposition and sat right here on the last day of the last Parliament. He knows where I stand. He is now the Prime Minister of this country and he leads the Government. He promised a settlement with Japanese-Canadians on a basis acceptable to them. That has not happened. Those negotiations have been unilaterally imposed. What is he going to do about it now?


Some Hon. Members:: Now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party, having said no to the Japanese community for 40 years, has the temerity to yell "now". Shame. Shame on all of you, except your Leader.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Leader of the Liberal Party today was the only one who had the courage to stand up and disagree with that band of sheep at the time.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Now it's a majority. You were opposed to redress for the Japanese-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. This House is not a place for Members to shout at each other across the aisle. The Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young).


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, this Party fought for Japanese-Canadians years ago.
My question is directed to the Minister responsible for CMHC. The Minister's Department has notified a number of tenants in a number of CMHC-controlled apartment dwellings, including the Main Square complex in Toronto, that his Department intends to increase rents by over 12 per cent a month in many buildings. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government and CMHC will not proceed with this rent gouging policy? Will they contain any increases in CMHC controlled buildings to within the 4 per cent limit which has been promised by the Ontario Government?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer specifically apartment by apartment, but I can assure the Hon. Member that if there are difficulties because of a rent increase by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, there are provisions for that and there will be an understanding if these rent increases cause personal hardship to those tenants. These rental increases are considered in an over-all period of recovering from the six and five program imposed by the previous administration which, in many cases, left the rents far, far below even the low end of market rent in a lot of CMHC held properties.


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO ONTARIO RENT REVIEW BOARD
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, many senior citizens in those building, because of the increase are going to lose the $50 increase in the GIS. I would ask the Minister one simple question. Would he agree to submit those rental increases to the Ontario Rent Review Board?
April 16, 1985


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the rental increases which have been proposed by CMHC are those increases which are necessary to provide a return to the Canadian taxpayer from dwellings where-


Ian Deans: Oh, come on!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: If there are any tenants in properties owned by CMHC who are under severe hardship, or any form of hardship, they have the right and the knowledge of application for either increased rental subsidies or rent geared to income components in apartments for which CMHC is responsible.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Monday, April 15, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) has a question of privilege.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, in the House today the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that all Liberals in the House in the last Parliament supported a position which was opposed to the settlement of the Japanese question.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the Prime Minister, and this House that in the last Parliament there was a committee of this House, with a majority of Liberals, which put out a unanimous report recommending the settlement of that matter-


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Order.


William Warren Allmand: -so a large number of Liberals in this House did not do what the Prime Minister said. He is completely wrong on that matter.


Mr. Gauthier:: Bravo!


Mr. Speaker:: Does any other Hon. Member have a question of privilege? There are no other questions of privilege.
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to this House a petition signed by over 100 members of the communities of Edam and Vawn, Saskatchewan. They are concerned about the proposed deregulation of the long distance telephone service and humbly call upon this Parliament to ask for its consideration so that the people of Saskatchewan are not affected by higher basic rates for telephone service as a result of telephone deregulation.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 247 and 265.


Mr. Caccia: 1.	What is the total number of storage sites in Canada that contain (a) lethal gasses (b) hazardous products?
2.	What types of lethal gasses or hazardous products are stored and, what arc their (a) quantities (b) exact locations?


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of the Environment):: 1 and 2. Control of manufacture, storage and use of lethal gasses and hazardous products is a provincial responsibility, and as such this question is subject to the provisions of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fifth Edition, Citation 357(dd).


Mr. Heap: 1.	How many persons in each province and in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver received unemployment insurance payments and were subsequently ruled uninsurable by the Pension Appeal Board (TEG Int. Case 1982)?
2.	What amount (a) was paid by UIC to persons in this category (b) has been recovered from persons in this category?
3.	How many persons have paid back all or part of their overpayments?
4.	How many persons have paid back money through retention or part or all of their (a) unemployment insurance (b) welfare payments they subsequently received?
5.	How many persons have appealed their overpayments to the Board of Referees, Umpire and Tax Court of Canada and how many (a) won their case

April 16, 1985
Order Paper Questions
(b) lost their case and, how many partial reductions of overpayments demanded of them have been allowed?
6.	What amount was repaid to companies who were relieved from repaying unemployment insurance premiums by this decision?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: I am
informed by Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Department of National Revenue as follows:
1.	The overpayments which have been established as of February 15, 1985, are as follows:
Prince Edward Island	- 0
Newfoundland	- 0
Nova Scolia	- 3
New Brunswick	- 3
Quebec	- 7 (4 of which were in Montreal)
Oniario	- 348 (263 of which were in Toronto)
Manitoba	- 2
Saskatchewan	- 0
Alberta	- 14
British Columbia	- 5 (3 of which were in Vancouver)
2.	(a) $1,850,069. (b) $42,899.
3.	Fifty-eight.
4.	(a) 25, (b) Nil.
5.	(a)(i) 102 persons have appealed to the Board of Referees. Of these, 18 appellants have won their cases, 41 have lost, and 43 cases have not yet been heard, (ii) 30 persons have appealed to the Umpire, but none of these cases has been heard, (iii) 179 persons have appealed to the Tax Court of Canada. In the only appeal heard to date, the Tax Court of Canada found in the favour of the appellant. This decision is under appeal to the Federal Court of Canada but has not been heard to date.
(b) There are no partial reductions of overpayments in the appeal process.
6.	$708,340.03.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Langdon:
That this House calls upon the Government to immediately bring in stimulative proposals to reduce unemployment by a minimum of 2.5 per cent within the next 12 months, given the failure of the Government to live up to its commitment to make job-creation its number one priority, and its pursuit, instead, of a policy of cut-backs which has led to a rise in unemployment in three of the last four months.
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I promised Hon. Members of the House this morning that I would continue to expand on my opening remarks. In listening to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), who was the second speaker for the New Democratic Party this morning, I wondered if he could recognize a government program or policy which created a job because he stood and talked about the Western Accord which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) signed some two and a half weeks ago. I would just like to read some of the headlines in the newspapers in my riding which flow directly from that Accord. The Calgary Herald states, "Demand for Engineers on the Upswing. Cranes May Once Again Break Skyline". Another headline reads, "Large Scale Energy Projects Seen Possible". The last, and perhaps the most important headline, Mr. Speaker, reads, "Student Job Picture Brighter". That Mr. Speaker, is a piece of public policy which creates jobs.
I sat in this House and watched the Liberal Government with its majority ram down the throats of Canadians, without sufficient thought, a piece of public policy in the energy field which chased $18 billion of capital out of this country. That is 18 thousand million dollars which was chased out of Canada into the United States of America, Australia, the Arab States, Mexico, or somewhere else, along with the jobs. We, in essence, through a single piece of public policy, were in the business of exporting jobs. And when the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain stands in this Chamber, having been a part of all that experience, and fails to recognize that the complete abandonment of the National Energy Program is the greatest single piece of job-generating public policy that any Government has brought forward in this country in recent memory, then I simply feel sorry for his capacity to learn from experience.
The New Democratic Party convened a task force which went around the country hearing witnesses. The task force wrote a report and today we have an Opposition Day based on an NDP motion. In the report of the task force there is some good news and some bad news. If I could just start, in the interests of non-partisan debate, with the good news, I would suggest that in the 72 recommendations there are an awful lot which are copied from previous Progressive Conservative Party task force reports and the report of the parliamentary subcommittee on Employment Opportunities for the '80s. That is the
April 16, 1985

good news. The even better news is that the new Government, in a brief period of six months, has acted on many of those recommendations and by the time the NDP laid the report on the table, those particular policies were under way and in many cases implemented. I draw attention particularly to the NDP recommendation that the Government of Canada make every effort to purchase from Canadian suppliers. That is being done. That was one of the first things the new Government set in train.
There is a recommendation that foreign firms with subsidiary branch plants in Canada be required, be asked, be encouraged, whatever, to put more investment into this country, to produce more goods within this country. And, Mr. Speaker, every step this Government has taken-not in one single way but in lots of ways-has been dedicated in part toward that end. The whole issue of Investment Canada which the Opposition has tried to filibuster is simply going in the direction of the recommendation. Underlying everything is the need for business confidence if we are going to get the economy turned around and get those jobs back. Certainly by its behaviours this Government has shown that it is going in that direction. That is the good news, Mr. Speaker, the extent to which the report copies from previous reports and already implemented strategy.
It almost makes me sad to have to stand in this Chamber, having read the report, knowing there were university academics involved in its preparation, because it will perhaps mislead some people. But I am even more disturbed by what appears to me to be some fatal flaws in logic. One of the key thoughts behind the report is that the federal deficit should be expanded for the purpose of creating jobs. They lay out some data and tell us that since 1975, when the Government moved to restraint, unemployment went from 6.9 per cent to 11 per cent. Therefore, they say, restraint is bad and a bigger deficit is good. But, Mr. Speaker, the federal deficit went up in that decade and is now 10 times larger than it was in 1975. How on earth could a university-trained person make the statement that the deficit increasing 10 times in 10 years is restraint? It defies logic. There has been no restraint in Canada. There has been no common sense in Canada. To conclude on the basis of the Canadian experience that restraint does not work is pure lunacy and would get you flunked in any basic economics course in the country.
When I was elected to this House some 17 cents out of every tax dollar went to pay interest on the public debt. That was six years ago. Today it is close to 36 cents. We used to have 83 cents out of every tax dollar to spend on programs, and now we have 64 cents. That is what the increase in the deficit has done. It means that the federal Government has to borrow 92 per cent of the projected savings of Canadians. That leaves 8 per cent for Canadians to buy a car, a home or a boat. That is why we have had to reach out to borrow money abroad, and when you do that you have to send interest payments out of the country. So following this whole period of economic insani-
Supply
ty and excessive borrowing we have increasing unemployment. That is the reality.
The NDP talks about Canadians wanting government leadership in four main areas. It has met groups of people, talked to Canadians, listened to them, and it says we need leadership in four key areas. Job expansion is the top priority, and we agree. We agreed during the election and we agree today. We have to get a million and a half people back to work. Another of those four key areas was removing inequities in employment. We believe that is true and we commend the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) for moving so swiftly on the Abella report to do something concrete and positive which has been needed for a long time. We agree that Canadians see that as a key area and we are pleased to have made a start. The third area is that of tax reform, and here also we believe the NDP is right; Canadians want tax reform. We may disagree on the kind of reform or on some of the details, but Canadians want it, and let me tell the NDP that the Western Accord is a revision of Canadian tax policy with enormous job creation potential. We believe it is something the voters of this country wanted and are glad they got. We will see other examples of tax policy changes.
We now come to the fourth area, that of more direct government involvement in productive investment. But Canadians did not tell the NDP that that is what they wanted. If the NDP gerrymandered specific groups, they may have got that message, but that is the only way. Either that or the NDP invented this as the fourth key area to go along with the ideology with which it started. But that is not something that Canadians believe. Canadians have had very little experience with direct government investment that has been productive. By and large, their experience is that the least productive way to go about things is through direct government involvement. It leads in many, many cases to waste and inefficiency and there are temptations for patronage and all kinds of negative things. We believe-and I think any well conducted scientific poll would support the notion-that Canadians want Government out of the direct investment field. They want private sector investment. They want real long-term jobs. They want jobs with career potential, jobs which exist because there is a product or service that somebody wants to purchase. That is where efficiency comes from. That is where the long-term economic health of this nation comes from. That is is where progress comes from.
There is a committee of this House of Commons, the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, where we have laboured long and hard since the middle of January on our investigation of immigration. We have heard a lot of witnesses and produced the first and second reports. We are now writing the third report and beginning investigation today into another area, that of refugees. The second report said that, where immigration was concerned, we should have a population goal in mind. We believe that that goal should be an increase in the population and that immigration is an important factor in increasing Canada's population. Because of birth and death rates we will require increased immigration.

April 16, 1985
Supply
But we said that, in dealing with that increase, we should take a portion-right now about 2 per cent, perhaps in time that number will be 3 per cent or even 4 per cent-and go around the world to seek out entrepreneurs, people with cash, people with experience, people with a product who want to come to Canada with their families and create businesses and jobs for Canadians. This is a job-creation program through immigration. It would not disturb family reunification or refugees; in fact, there would be more of those. We said, let us take a part of that increase and create jobs for Canadians. We have a little bit of experience which suggests that the few people in that category we have let in have created 24,000 jobs already. They brought an average of $800,000 of equity capital apiece and created 24,000 jobs. If we can expand that and make it 10 times larger, that would be a quarter of a million jobs at a time when we have 1.5 million unemployed people.
The NDP and the Liberals went to a press conference and said that they do not want that job creation. That is the essence of what they said. They said they would rather play politics on the heads of Canadians than do something sane and sensible in terms of job creation in the country such as encouraging the people with business ideas and capital expenditures to create jobs and futures for Canadians. The NDP and the Liberals said publicly that that is a bad idea. If they want to say publicly that that is a bad idea, I simply suggest to them that they are beginning, if they have not already done so, to lose any credibility they may have had on the job-creation issue. That job-creation idea does not cost the taxpayers a dime. It could produce jobs for one-quarter of a million people. When they reverse their stand on that it may be worth-while to look at some of their other ideas.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech before the break the Hon. Member referred to the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) promise during the election campaign that they would create tens upon tens of thousands of jobs. The Hon. Member said that they had achieved that promise and created 100,000 jobs. Of course he did not say that they have also cancelled and lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. How else can it be explained that in August of 1984 the unemployment rate was 11.2 per cent and in March, nearly seven months after they took office, the rate is still 11.2 per cent? Of course some new jobs were created, but at the same time they cut a lot of jobs in the Public Service, the cultural agencies, the CBC, and the Department of the Environment. Surely when the Prime Minister made those promises during the election campaign he meant that there would be additional jobs created rather than a total loss in jobs. I think the Hon. Member should be honest and fair in talking about this. I would like him to explain this. Did the Prime Minister mean that while jobs would be created they would also cut out jobs? Why did he not say that during the election campaign? Why was he not frank with the Canadian people?
With regard to the immigration report that the committee produced a week or so ago, I must remind the Hon. Member
that the entrepreneurial program was started by a Liberal Government. It was started by the Member right here when he was Minister. We are not opposed to the entrepreneurial program. We started it. We are opposed to the way in which the recommendation was made which gave priority to people in a certain category, people with money. We are opposed to that and to other parts of the report, but we are not opposed to the entrepreneurial program. That was our program.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Hon. Member reads the report. He voted against it. It does not say anything about priority for people with money, not one single word. I challenge him to come to the House with the report and show me where it says that.
With regard to the other issue which the Hon. Member raised, there are adjusted and unadjusted figures which come out of the labour force survey. The only honest, decent comparison is year over year. We have just been through March of 1985. There were 10,864,000 Canadians employed in March of 1985 and 10,595,000 Canadians employed in March of 1984. This March there were 269,000 more people employed than last year in the same month. That is progress, Mr. Speaker. The month before it was 217,000. That is the record of the Government. Whatever crib sheet the Member is cribbing from was created somewhere in Alice in Wonderland. It does not relate to the true job situation in Canada.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the portions of the intervention of the Hon. Member across the way which had anything to do with the debate today. I was interested to hear him say that he supported, in essence, the New Democratic Party call in the document for tax reform. I wonder whether he is serious. Are the tax changes which accorded benefits to the oil companies typical of what he foresees as tax reforms intended to benefit the people who spoke to us?
He tells us that no Canadians anywhere in the land want increased direct government expenditure of any kind. It may be appropriate for him to address the report of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities which quite clearly indicates that not only does it want direct government investment, but that it is necessary job-creating investment. Does the Hon. Member oppose the direct government investment involved in renewing our forests, fisheries, energy and education? Has he been across the country and seen that the needs which his own Government should support, in part through direct government investment, are the very needs the people of the country want to see met and which will create jobs?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the issue of direct government involvement in productive investment is listed in the NDP report as one of the key areas. I do not quarrel with the reality that government funds will be better spent in the creation of a solid infrastructure. I do quarrel with the assertion in their document that Canadians would identify that as one of the four key areas. Starting with an ideological persuasion they used selective perception, drawing from two or three briefs, to arrive at that. It is not a conclusion that Canadians, chosen at
April 16, 1985

random, would reach. That is not the mood of the country. The mood is to do the things which create permanent, longterm jobs in the private sector. That is a justifiable mood because we have gone too far in the other direction.
They asked me whether I was in favour of tax breaks for the oil industry. Mr. Speaker, I have always been in favour of stopping and correcting the highway robbery of a single industry based in a single geographic region of the country, especially when that highway robbery chased jobs out of the country. Yes, I am in favour of a fair, just taxation policy that encourages jobs rather than discouraging them. That is the type of tax reform policy the country needs.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member just said that he knows what the mood of the country is. In relation to his elitist and narrow-minded immigration report, I ask how he got the mood of the country through that process when there were only seven witnesses from the Immigration Department. There was not a single witness from the immigrant aid societies, the ethnocultural groups, the unions, the economic community, or any Canadian who would be interested in the immigration policy of the country.
The Chairman and his band of right-wing Tories said in that report that no economic study was done, whether independently or by the Finance Minister (Mr. Wilson), correlating the immigration targets and the employment and labour force goals of the Government. Despite that, they went on to say that they feel the country needs rich immigrants, which is also to overlook the fact that thousands upon thousands of immigrants of poor and average income came to the country and became successful businessmen. Thousands of those immigrants came to this country and took jobs that some Canadians did not want. Thousands of those immigrants came to this country and brought their skills and trades. All immigrants regardless of economic standing and status contribute to this economy by being consumers in this economy. They come here, they buy a home, they buy a car and so forth. While we as a Party support and encourage people with entrepreneurial spirit and capability to consider this country as their new homeland, we are suggesting that that is not the only way to prosperity and to build economic growth in Canada. Immigrants came here in the past. Immigrants can continue to come in the future and will add economically as well. Any immigration policy founded on the cornerstone of only rich immigrants is an insensitive, non-compassionate and regressive policy that is in keeping with this Government.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, over the last three years the Liberal Party of Canada choked off immigration and increased the proportion of rich people who came here under that policy. That is what the Hon. Member's Government did for the last three years.
Our Party is recommending an increase in immigration. Within that increase we want to create jobs. We believe we are on the right track. We have said not a single word about cutting off the kind of immigrants which the Hon. Member
Supply
talks about. All of us in this country come from stock of that kind. Our relatives came here with nothing. They created this country and they created our standard of living. We believe that must continue. The Hon. Member belongs to a party that was choking that concept to death. We are opening it up again, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we have had several opportunities in this House over the last session to debate in various forms the issue of employment.
I want to compliment the Members of the New Democratic Party for having brought this motion forward and for once again giving Parliamentarians a chance to address what all of our constituents would say is one of the most important, if not the most important issue, along with that of the nuclear arms question, that we were sent here to look at and examine.
I want to say that we compliment the New Democrats as well on their initiative in going across the country to find out about job creation. Like many other Members of Parliament, we thought it was about time the Government found out about job creation. We are very glad that the New Democrats took the opportunity to do so and to share some of those findings with us.
What is important about the timing of this debate is that it comes at a time some five weeks before, we hope, the federal budget, that long awaited panacea promised us by various Members of the Government opposite that is to provide all the answers to problems raised. Every time a question has been asked in this House about where the jobs are, we hear them say, "Wait until the budget comes". Everything up to now has been preliminary. What is disturbing about that is we are still seeing fundamental conflicts taking place in the Conservative Government over the best way to approach the question of economic growth and job creation.
I do not dispute the Government's interest about this, we must express a very deep concern about the Government's ability and competence in this regard, and its ability to find the proper answers. What we have seen evidenced so far is a continual contradiction of goals and purposes, means and ends. The Conservative Government has replaced any coherence or consistency with public relations, flackery and promises for the future. We have seen a consistent pattern of one Minister falling over another, of cancelling one program and replacing it with another without giving any sense of objective or direction as to where the Minister wants to take his or her department or this Government. That mistaken problem of developing any logical or effective economic strategy has once again been high-lighted by the remarks we have just heard from the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) who really is a shimmering mass of contradiction sheathed in a growing sense of his own self-importance.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it does not add up to what this country is asking for. I think the New Democratic caucus in its

April 16, 1985
Supply
examination, and individual Members of our caucus in their own constituencies, know what Canadians want. People wish this Government well. They did give them a mandate, there is no question about that. People now want this Government to perform. People want to see the results of that performance.
What I want to do in part this afternoon is express those concerns, speaking if I might just for my constituents, those to whom I have spoken during the Easter break. First, they want to know what this Government is trying to achieve. This Government has many Ministers. Let me choose one in particular, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), who has been a great advocate of the idea that the market will solve our problems. That chorus has been echoed time and time again by Conservative Members of Parliament who decry past efforts at public investment job creation and industrial programs that have been attempted to give small businesses in different regions a chance to develop their business prospects and opportunities. "No," they say, "those programs are all wrong. They do not work. We are going to rely upon the market to solve the problems."
What do we have, Mr. Speaker? We have Domtar, we have Petrosar, and we have White. We have the same kind of inconsistency which the Tories were talking about. Where is the market in those cases? I do not know. I guess what happened is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) called in the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, rapped his knuckles and said, "The real market is the political market in Quebec. It is not the economic market that we are concerned about according to our theory." We happen to think that maybe they made the right choice and we should be providing incentives for industry to establish.
But we have a Government preaching theology on the one hand and practising a very different religion on the other. It ends up in a mass of confusion. The Tories do not have an industrial policy. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion time and time again finds himself being contradicted by his boss, just as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) finds himself being contradicted. We need not go through the long history because Members of the House are well aware of the Minister of Finance saying, "We must first take a look at social programs", and the Prime Minister saying, "No, we can't". We remember the Minister of Finance saying, "We are going to provide restraints in these areas of Government programs", and the Prime Minister saying, "No, we can't".
What we have seen up to now is simply Ministers of the Crown bumping into each other, or trying to stay out of each other's way but not producing any clear formula, any clear program, any clear development that will give Canadians some sense of where they are going. That is the fundamental problem we face. We have a Government that came into power without knowing what to do. The Conservatives had their pet theories, but those theories have been abandoned and thrown on the scrap heap. Now they are going from day to day, week to week, changing their minds, changing their programs, and what they end up doing is relying upon previous and past Liberal programs, ones they were so critical about in the
election and which they said did not work. But that is the only source of economic initiative which the Tories have been able to provide so far.
Let me give you another example, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) stands up in this House and lauds the new revolution in job creation, the great sort of Renaissance that we will have in new training activities, except first she cuts back substantially on the amount of money in the programs. With regard to the summer programs for youth, a group of people who rely substantially on federal assistance, with the exception of two provinces every province has had its allocation cut back over last year. When you look at the figures, you see that the young people of this country are being short-changed. No new jobs are being provided.
What about the great promise that the Tories are going to provide career related internships? 1 agree with that because when I saw a Minister I brought that program into being- three years ago. There is nothing new or revolutionary about it. The program has been given a new name. It has been given cosmetic treatment. It offers nothing new in the way of new job creation. The single new initiative by Conservatives for young people has been to cut back the actual expenditure of money for summer youth jobs. That is the only new initiative they have taken for young people. Now we see that the same kind of chicanery is taking place in the so-called Regina manifesto. Approximately $540 million was offered to provide for new training, or new skills development to prepare Canadians for future jobs. However, in the meantime they cancelled the programs which were in place and have not got around to replacing them.
One prime example which illustrates this in a very vivid way was brought to my attention when I met with representatives of the Outreach program in my constituency over the Easter holiday. Their primary job is to help older women to get back into the workforce. They provide employment counselling and job training to enable those who need to return to the workforce to acquire the skills they need to obtain jobs. They showed me a list of potential jobs which were available to those women. What was missing was training for those jobs.
1 asked what had happened because at one time we had the skills growth fund and new training programs. They had been cancelled by the Minister of Employment and Immigration. For some reason or other she did not believe there should be assistance for older women to obtain basic upgrading in skills in order to get into technical training programs. They have been cancelled and nothing has been put in their place. Even though jobs may be available, these older women cannot fill them because this great new revolutionary Government which was to do everything for Canadians has not got around to plugging the holes or filling the vacuums. This vital area of providing training for women who want to get into the workforce is all up in the air. Nothing has been offered.
April 16, 1985

Is that the new kind of economic renewal about which we are talking? They are denying women skills in the workforce. Is this the new Renaissance which the Minister of Employment and Immigration has been promising? I checked further as to why the replacement has not taken place, and I was told that they were consulting again with the provinces, and with everyone else. Consultations have been going on for seven months. I asked when the new program would be ready, and I was told that it may be six or seven months from now. They may be ready to announce the replacements at that point, so we will have lost a full year of opportunity for Canadians to be trained. That does not make sense. That is not effective management; that is not competent Government. That is not providing leadership in the job-creation area. It was simply getting rid of programs because they were "Liberal" programs, but they do not have the wit or ability to manage quickly any replacements so that there will be a continuity of training in the country. I hope Conservative Members of Parliament will be listening to their constituents and taking soundings. That is the reality of what is taking place.
I should like to deal with the great economic conference, when all kinds of people were brought together for consultation. Those people made one mistake. They told the Ministers at the conference something they did not want to hear. They told them that their programs were not working and that the obsessive concentration on deficit reduction would in fact increase unemployment, not help it. The Minister of Finance refused to listen, he just said that they could not be right. Then they brought together 150 of the top corporate leaders, union leaders, educators and community leaders. When these leaders had the honesty to tell it as it was, they were dismissed. The reality is there.
The Hon. Member for Calgary West waxed eloquently about all the prospects. I should like to refer to a report of the Conference Board of Canada, a board which I think Hon. Members of the House agree represents no particular partisan interests. It compiled a report based upon the findings of 18 different private economic forecasters in Canada, everything from banks to university groups and all independent groups in between. What is their forecast for next year and the year after? The growth rate is expected to be 2.8 per cent, possibly closer to 2.2 per cent. This represents a substantial decline from the 4 per cent average growth rate over the past two years. All those policies which were ridiculed and criticized by the Prime Minister and others created a growth rate of 4 per cent over the past two years. The best efforts of this Government, with all the new confidence, motivation and consultation, will result in, according to the 18 best forecasters in Canada, 2.8 per cent at best, and 2.2 per cent at worst. Something is going wrong in the system somewhere.
With that kind of forecast in mind, one would think the Government would start to rethink its position and provide some different judgment on the application of its ideas and principles. We still have this obsessive adherence to a theology with nothing taking its place, no application or implementation of the program. We are now faced with a country in economic
Supply
limbo, a country seized with uncertainty, a country without real economic leadership or direction. We are now heading to a point where there is a down curve on the economic horizon and there is no compass to provide some form of direction. This is why it is important in these debates to put forward the kinds of positions which are necessary and important to create economic growth.
Let me deal with the issue of the fiscal management of the country. I should like to give a word of warning to government Members opposite. As they move toward budget date, and the examination of how they will reduce the deficit, we plead with them to make a simple calculation-any reduction should be based upon jobs gained, not jobs lost. As the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) pointed out earlier today, the end result of the November statement of the Minister of Finance was not a net increase in employment, it was a net decrease in employment. That was the basic problem. We have continually asked the Minister of Finance to show us wrong or to disprove that basic equation. He had refused to do so because he knows we are right. He knows that in fact the end result has been a net reduction in employment, not a net creation of jobs.
The Hon. Member for Calgary West pulled out year over year figures, but he refused or somehow forgot to make the observation that there is also growth in the labour force in those year over year figures. Of course there are changes. There is natural population growth. People come out of school and go into the labour market. We add 200,000 or 300,000 per year to the labour market simply as a result of the number of young people leaving educational institutions. There is a real problem in relation to the basic equation which will be applied to any form of deficit reduction.
Let us take a look at the question of public investment, which I heard the Hon. Member for Calgary West decry, and all its influences. A report of the NDP caucus, based upon a report on which we and the Canadian Federation of Municipalities worked last year, pointed out that there should be a minimum of something like $12 billion of investment in public infrastructure.
The repair of roads, sewers, sewerways, the very basic lifeblood of the country, will need a major infusion of capital over the next five years. Otherwise the ability to gain productivity and to provide for the basic economic cycle to take place will be eliminated.


Mr. Orlikow:: Helping the railways.


Lloyd Axworthy: My colleague points out an interesting case. When the Conservatives were in opposition a year ago, along with the New Democrats, they opposed to the very end the Western Grain Transportation Act, which is now putting close to $1.5 billion a year of new capital investment into exactly what the NDP call for; public investment and new infrastructure. There would not be the investment in our railway system in western Canada, which is one of the few stimulants taking

April 16, 1985
Supply
place, if we had not had the courage to bring that in over their opposition. That is the reason there is major capital investment going into that which the NDP is now recommending. But they are a year too late. I wish they had written that report a year ago and that their colleagues at that time could have listened to their good advice.
At the same time, let us talk about the Western Accord. The Hon. Member for Calgary West said it will result in a major change to the economy. When you read the report, the only one to gain will be Texaco, which has the lowest rate of capital investment of any oil company in Canada. The losers will be the very Canadian oil companies which have been investing large sums of capital in energy development over the last four years.
Let's regard this debate as an opening round of the Budget debate. Let's look at it was a warning signal for the Conservatives to try and get their act straight, to forget their theology and, more importantly, to try to put together some coherence in their economic policies so when we get to the Budget on May 20, we will at least know what they stand for and not simply what they stand against.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, is the Hon. Member for Win-nipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) aware that in the Toronto area the Challenge '85 program introduced by the Minister has led to a situation where private businesses offering career opportunities to young people this summer have over-subscribed the $9 million allotted to the Toronto area. There are so many career-oriented jobs offered by business that were not otherwise available that the employment created by that $9 million will be dramatically higher than the past year, simply because the Government is only paying half of the wage cost, and that is limited to $2.50 an hour. Is he aware that the Department, in co-operation with the Province of Ontario, using the Ontario stimulus fund of $1.25 an hour has created a great number more summer jobs this year than ever before in the past?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) that the original paternity of the seed program was the NEED program which I introduced when I was Minister of Employment and Immigration in 1983. We put $5 million of federal funds forward. With that we attracted an additional $650 million of private sector and provincial funds. The Conservative Government is following a very effective and useful program which was strated by the Liberal Government in 1983, a program which at that time was roundly criticized by the Member himself for not working as well as it should.
I do not object to the notion of using federal job-creation funds as an incentive for private sector and provincial and municipal funds, because that is what I did. That is the program we introduced. It was our Government that put forward the career internship which provided that kind of incentive. What I object to is the way in which the summer youth program has provided major cancellations and restraints
upon a number of community organizations and groups that also have to rely upon summer grants.
You can go from constituency to constituency in this country and find that day care centres, women abuse centres, various forms of social, ethnic and immigration centres cannot get their summer money. I deny the fallacy that their jobs are somehow second rate compared to jobs at a McDonald's restaurant. We should be equally as sensitive about the jobs created for the volunteer sector, the community sector and the service sector. That also gives young people an understanding about the community in which they live. It gives young Canadians an opportunity to develop real skills that we will need in the future to help disadvantaged Canadians, and there will be a lot more disadvantaged Canadians the longer this Government stays in power.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Win-nipeg-Fort Garry ought to know that the Challenge '85 program does not provide assistance to McDonald's for serving hamburgers. You might get that kind of assistance from the Province of Ontario job-creation program, but this is a career-oriented program. All sorts of proposals have been turned down because they do not supply enough career instruction and assistance. Even at that, the program is over-subscribed. Surely the Member should stand in his place today and congratulate the Minister for a well-thought-out summer program. As he said, perhaps it follows some of his own thinking.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would be the first to say that the highest form of flattery is to copy what one has done before. If the Minister is simply copying what the previous Minister of Employment introduced, it shows that at least she is showing good sense in one area of her administration.
I want to provide some correction before the Hon. Member for Mississauga South gets carried away. Every summer program is over-subscribed. Every summer program had three or four times the applications that could be funded. It is nothing new. The fact is that there is always an awful lot more demand than there is supply, which I regret as much as he does. 1 want to know why the supply of money was cut back this year as opposed to being increased, as it naturally should have been.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Win-nipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) referred in his speech to the debate we had when his Government brought forward the legislation to change the Crow rate. He indicated quite correctly that Members of the New Democratic Party had opposed that Bill. At that time, because we opposed it vigorously and kept it from being passed quickly, we were attacked by the Hon. Member, saying that we were holding up the Bill and preventing hundreds of thousands of jobs from being created. I want to ask the Hon. Member what has happened to those thousands of jobs. The Hon. Member knows that in our city, a city which we both represent, as in many other cities, both the CNR and CPR, instead of hiring hundreds or thousands of new workers, have in fact been laying off workers. What happened to those predictions made by the Member who
April 16, 1985

was then Minister? Also, how does the Minister explain that many of the farm organizations are now having very serious reservations about the supposed good effects that were to come from the passage of that Bill?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to answer that question, if I may, because the Hon. Member and 1 share constituencies in the same area of Winnipeg. First, I would point out to him that in the past year some 45 new companies made application for assistance to develop new products related to the Western Grain Transportation program. Within our city, there will either be expansion of existing companies or new companies coming to the city strictly to provide new products and services to the railway expansion program. That creates a wide variety of jobs in the private sector. It is being duplicated in western cities and towns right across the three prairie provinces and British Columbia.
The Hon. Member asked about the layoffs. I too am concerned about the layoffs. Let me explain to the Hon. Member the reasons for the layoffs. The CNR announced 170 layoffs in the Transcona shops because both the federal Conservative Government and the provincial New Democratic Government are not living up to an agreement that we signed a year ago for the construction and rehabilitation of new boxcars in the Transcona shops to provide for running-stock to the Churchill area. They have dragged their feet, slowed the program down and have not required CN to produce those 1,000 boxcars. There is simply a lack of will and commitment on the part of both the federal Conservatives and the provincial NDPs to make that program come into effect and to provide work for the people in the Transcona shops. It would seem to me that the Hon. Member and his colleagues from Winnipeg would do much better if they were to talk to the provincial Minister of Transport who was a signatory to that agreement and ask him why he is backing away from that agreement and therefore causing those layoffs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: A very short supplementary.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that the Manitoba Government is operating with as large a deficit as it possibly can, something for which it is being criticized very severely by the provincial Conservative opposition. However, this is happening not only in Winnipeg. There have been layoffs all across both systems. We were told so many times by the Minister and his colleagues that the passage of that Bill would mean new business, not just for grain but for coal, sulphur and potash that would be shipped cheaper and more efficiently. We were told there would be a tremendous increase in business. The fact is that business is down and there are layoffs, and not just temporary layoffs. Both the CPR and the CNR have made it very clear to their workers and the unions that they foresee very substantial permanent reductions in
Supply
staff in the next few years. That is what concerns me, and I wonder what the former Minister has to say about that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. The period for questions and comments is now over. We shall resume debate.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this debate on a motion presented by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). That motion states:
That this House calls upon the Government to immediately bring in stimulative proposals to reduce unemployment by a minimum of 2Vi percent within the next 12 months, given the failure of the Government to live up to its commitment to make job creation its number-one priority, and its pursuit, instead, of a policy of cutbacks which has led to a rise in unemployment in three of the last four months.
If we think a national rate of unemployment of 11.2 per cent is rough and tough on Canadians, then let us think about single-industry towns. In single-industry towns, the unemployment rate is much more stifling than 11.2 per cent. There are in excess of 811 single-industry towns across the country.
Earlier I heard the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) talking about the NDP task force. He indicated that when the NDP task force went across the country, perhaps it heard only from people who leaned further to the left than the right. That suggestion was contained in his comments.
I come from a single-industry community. It has been mining from its very inception. We started with forestry, and then after we killed all the forests we set up the mines. Then we smelted close to the ground and the sulphur fumes killed off whatever trees had escaped the woodcutters' saws.
Let me put on record a letter signed by the Chairman of the Regional Municipality of Sudbury. By no stretch of the imagination is he a democratic socialist.


David Orlikow: Probably a Conservative.


John R. Rodriguez: Well, I would not want to give the Chairman a bad name. Certainly his letter is very poignant and concise. I think it puts this debate in some perspective. The letter is addressed to the Hon. Frank Miller. He writes:
Dear Mr. Premier:
As you are aware, the Regional Municipality of Sudbury continues to suffer the after-effects of the recent recession through a high rate of unemployment, a situation exacerbated by ongoing staff reductions by Inco Limited Falconbridge Limited.
While economic stabilization has been occurring in many other communities across the Province, such is not the case in the Regional Municipality of Sudbury and other Northern communities which depend heavily on a natural resources base. Over the past three years, Sudbury Region has been developing an economic diversification strategy which, in the long-term, we are confident will lead to recovery and eventual new growth.
It is in the short-term that we are experiencing our greatest difficulty. The impact of the recession is manifesting itself in a very serious and rapidly expanding welfare caseload. This not only threatens to severely stifle our economic recovery efforts, but also to substantially increase the Ontario Government's share of the cost of carrying the social welfare burden in our community.
At the peak of the recession, the Region's welfare caseload reached 3,400, which was an all-time high. With the assistance of the CO-ED job-creation programs, we were able to reduce that caseload to 2,300. Had those short-term job creation programs not been available, our caseload could easily have reached

April 16, 1985
Supply
upwards of 4,000. As a result of these dramatic reductions in our welfare caseload, a gross saving of $6.5 million was realized of which the Region's share was $1.3 million.
Because the Region's two major employers, Inco Limited and Falconbridge, provided us with their five-year staff reduction programs, we have been able to forecast the impact on our welfare caseload. Repeatedly, over the past two years, we have been warning your responsible Ministers and their senior staffs of the need to accommodate anticipated welfare caseload increases. Our caseload forecasts are rapidly becoming reality because already we have reached a high level of 3,300 cases, including several hundred young people. In addition, the Region has provided a 1985 budget allocation to accommodate only 2,400 cases during the summer months. It is apparent that the shortfall between available municipal funding and the cost of providing for as many as 900 more cases will produce compounded economic consequences for this community if other alternatives are not available.
We have been informed by both the Federal Government and the Provincial Government that job creation funding will be directed at the private sector. In this community, we cannot understand how this is going to take care of our immediate short-term problem because it is virtually impossible for the private sector in our already depressed economy to create sufficient jobs to pick up the shortfall. Our private sector, exclusive of Inco Limited and Falconbridge Limited which are large multinational corporations, is considerably smaller than in other municipalities of comparable size, and many of these firms produce for and hence depend upon the mining industry.
I think that is relevant, because in single-industry communities there is no private sector. The Government of the day across the way seems to be directing all of its economic energies and incentive programs to the private sector. As I have pointed out, in over 811 single-industry communities there is no extensive private sector. So instead of reducing the unemployment rate it will be exacerbated, as pointed out in the letter written by Mr. Tom Davies, Chairman of the Regional Municipality of Sudbury.
What is it that we can do in the short term to create jobs? I can think of the situation in my own riding. The week before the Easter break, I raised in the House the question of refining resources. It seems absolutely ridiculous that in 1985 resources mined in this country are shipped abroad to be refined outside the borders of Canada. Yet, that is the situation with Falconbridge Nickel Mines. It ships the nickel matte from the Sudbury Basin to Norway, and it has been doing that for the last 40-odd years. It has been shipped to Norway to be refined. However, the International Nickel Company of Canada is not allowed to ship its nickel matte to be refined somewhere else because there is a law in the Province of Ontario.
The Province of Ontario's Mining Act states that resources which are mined in Ontario must be refined in Canada. We would have preferred it to have read "Ontario", but that is fine, it must be refined in Canada. But, Section 104 of the same Act states that it does not apply to Falconbridge Nickel Mines. It seems to me that "a Tory is a Tory is a Tory", and it is a Tory Government which has been running the Province of Ontario for the last 44 years. The Tories wrote the Mining Act.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Well, you can applaud, but that kind of leeway which has been given to Falconbridge indicates who really calls the shots in Tory circles. It is not the people who
matter most, it is the rich people who matter most, and preferably the corporations. In fact, we have been after the provincial Tory Government of Ontario to have Falconbridge refine the nickel in the Sudbury Basin.
In the last two years the hourly workforce has been reduced from 2,800 to some 1,700 or 1,800. There were 900 jobs which disappeared. Now comes the denouement. Falconbridge now has an opportunity to buy nickel in Botswana because the AMEX Corporation is pulling out of nickel operations there. So, Falconbridge wants to get a larger share of the world market for nickel and moves into the Botswana market. Falconbridge is taking the Botswana nickel matte and shipping it to Norway to be refined. As a result of that, Falconbridge has to expand the refining capacity in Norway to the tune of $41.5 million Canadian.
It would seem only fair, if this Government is concerned about jobs and the principle that resources should be refined were they are mined, that as a self-respecting Government it should stand by that principle. The Government should tell Falconbridge to build a refinery in the Sudbury Basin to refine Canadian nickel, and to send the scrap to the Falconbridge operation to be smelted. We are not only sending out the matte to be refined in Norway, but we are importing the scrap into Sudbury from which nickel is extracted. That does not create jobs.
The private sector, which the Government worships and bows down to, is not in the business of creating jobs. The private sector is not a manpower centre and is not interested in whether Canadians work. The private sector is interested in what it can get out of the country. The cheaper it can extract to maximize its profits, the more it will do it. We should tell Falconbridge that it cannot do that. The $41.5 million would be a good down payment on a new refinery.
The other day the Minister of State for Mines (Mr. Layton), who thought Sudbury was a basement, said that he did not know to what I was referring when 1 asked him a question. He said that he would check with Falconbridge. He did check and sent me a letter. In his letter he said that he checked with Falconbridge and that a new refinery would cost in excess of $200 million and, therefore, the company could not afford to build a new refinery in the Sudbury Basin. However, on April 4, Mr. Peter McBride, who is a spokesman for Falconbridge, said that it would cost at least $125 million to build a Canadian refinery. Well, I would suggest that $41.5 million would be a good down payment on a new refinery. Indeed, I would suggest that both the provincial and federal Governments ought to take equity in the remainder of the $125 million and build a refinery. If that was done, those Governments would have been honest to the principle that resources should be refined where they are mined.
At the rate at which mines are closing today, the Minister of State for Mines will soon be the "Minister without mines".


Howard Douglas McCurdy: The mineless Minister.
April 16, 1985


John R. Rodriguez: That is right. The Hon. Member said "the mineless Minister". He will lose his car and his chauffeur. We would not want to do that to the Minister.
The Minister said that he understood the plight of Falcon-bridge. He said that the Government does not want to create a regulatory environment which would lead corporations to be unproductive. Well, we in the Sudbury Basin are not asking the Government to create a regulatory environment. We simply want the Government to say to its Tory friends in Ontario: "Remove Section 104 of the Ontario Mining Act and let Falconbridge be subject to the laws of the province and the country".
Not only was 1 a member of the NDP jobs task force, I also toured with my colleagues in northwestern Ontario. We visited communities which were single-industry towns. If one were to look at this on a time span basis, we visited communities which represented the past, the present and the future. We went to Atikokan and saw what happened in the past. We saw our past practices and our past inabilities in dealing with the whole question of single-industry towns, in diversification and job creation. We saw a town in which the mine had run out of ore. The people living in the community in the past had been completely dependent on the mines. Some problems were evident. The fact that the cost of maintaining the services in the municipality fell on fewer shoulders and a more narrow assessment base resulted in home owners having to pay a fantastic cost in order to maintain the infrastructure, let alone putting in new infrastructure. As we went from town to town, that issue arose again and again. We saw a need for a municipal fund from which municipalities could draw, not only to refurbish infrastructure, but to provide improved services to the communities. In my own riding there are still communities where the people cannot drink the water from the well because it is contaminated. People have to drive miles to bring back jars of good water.
We went to other communities. The Griffith mine in Ear Falls is closing after advertising during the previous two years in an effort to attract workers. They put a large advertisement in the newspaper which says in part, "The Griffith mine is a part of this growth, lending a stable economic base to the Red Lake-Ear Falls area with a future that will extend into the 21st century". But last fall it was announced that the Griffith mine is closing and over 700 workers are going to be without work. Just the week before the company convinced several workers to buy the company homes in which they were living and lock themselves into a mortgage.
We recommended that there should be a diversification fund for single industry towns because the local communities are aware of their own needs. Local communities want to have some say in and some control over their economic destiny. In
Supply
fact, the provision of a diversification fund would allow them that flexibility, control and ability to grow and develop and create jobs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments? There are no questions or comments.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) -Immigration Committee report (a) Entrepreneurship advocacy (b) Consideration of report; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) (a) Request for moratorium on transportation ofdangerous substances (b) Debate on legislation; the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gorm-ley)-Canadian Wheat Board-Price of winter wheat.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Landgon:
That this House calls upon the Government to immediately bring in stimulative proposals to reduce unemployment by a minimum of 2x/i per cent within the next 12 months, given the failure of the Government to live up to its commitment to make job creation its number one priority, and its pursuit, instead, of a policy of cutbacks which has led to a rise in unemployment in three of the last four months.
Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the motion moved by the Opposition certainly reflects their good intentions in emphasizing the need for creating jobs in Canada. However, we intend to make it clear to the House that our hon. friends in the Opposition have completely lost touch with reality.
Mr. Speaker, in our Agenda for Economic Renewal tabled last November, we set forth the strategy to be followed in three key areas namely, first of all, limiting and ultimately reversing the massive build-up in public debt; second, redefining the role of government so that it provides a better framework for growth and job creation and less of an obstacle to change and innovation; and third, adopting policies that foster greater

April 16, 1985
Supply
innovation, increased international competitiveness and a positive climate for the birth and growth of new enterprise. Without this kind of strategy, Canada as it is today will not be able to sustain durable economic growth that will create jobs.
I shall, if 1 may, review each of these points. The rising deficit and our cumulative debt are a serious threat to economic growth and renewal. It is not so much a matter of ideology as simply recognizing the very serious problem caused by the disastrous effect of compound interest on the national debt. Gaining absolute control over the deficit is not an end in itself, but it is the only way we can achieve our objective to create jobs and sustainable growth. That is why this Government announced last November that putting its fiscal house in order would be the first item on its agenda for economic renewal. It is also why we have quickly taken steps to control public spending effectively and efficiently.
We believe that if we are to control the deficit, our priority must be to reduce Government spending, which implies more efficient management of Government programs. Improving efficiency of management practices in our public administration is essential, but this alone will not resolve the problems created by the deficit. We will have to examine existing programs and carefully scrutinize Government spending, but nevertheless, total expenditures are so high compared with Government revenues, that even if every possible measure is taken to reduce spending, the deficit and cumulative debt may continue to be a problem. Although necessary to ensure economic growth, controlling the deficit alone is not enough. That is why we said last November that two other elements were equally important if we were to achieve our goal of creating jobs and sustainable growth.
The second requirement is to redefine the role of Government so that it becomes less of an obstacle to growth. An intricate web of regulations, subsidies and other forms of intervention has built up over the years. What seemed to be straightforward protective measures at the time have now become, in many cases, an economic straight-jacket. This network of Government intervention has created a major obstacle to growth-more diffuse, less easy to measure and quantify but every bit as real as our present financial problems.
We are trying gradually to remove these obstacles in order to be able to establish a framework of policies that will promote the creation of jobs and economic growth.
Mr. Speaker, the Members of the Opposition would like us to act quickly and do the exact opposite of what we are doing now. Our answer is simple. We have been quick to intervene in a number of areas. In other areas, however, we have not yet done so because it is very important to attain a better understanding of available options and to establish a better basis for co-operation, so that when we do make our decisions, they will produce the best possible results.
To this end, the Government has developed a very specific program, and we are ready and determined to act: first of all, to promote healthy competitiveness by adopting updated competition legislation; to relieve small businesses of their unproductive administrative paper burden; to simplify regulations for transport, communications, and financial services. In this
connection, I might remind the House that yesterday, the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) released in Montreal a discussion paper that is intended to pave the way for the first major revisions in decades to the regulations governing financial institutions; to update our copyright and patent legislation; to simplify our tax system; to streamline our system for providing grants to industry; to remove obstacles to investment; to free the oil and gas industry from the restrictions of extreme regulation and taxation; and to reform many other areas of public policy.
We are resolved to deal with these issues and with many others, but without undue haste, so as to be sure to succeed on our first try, something some members of the Opposition do not seem to understand, Mr. Speaker.
We must do a lot more than just redefining the role of government and removing obstacles to growth. We must act to foster a positive climate for investment, innovation, and increased international competitiveness. That is the third aspect of our strategy for economic renewal.
Allow me to explain where we are focussing our efforts. Suppose we consider investment. If we want to promote sustained economic growth, we must encourage investment in new production areas that will create jobs. The energy sector has a major role to play in economic renewal, and growth in this industry will resume if we go back to a pricing system determined by market conditions, if we go back to more realistic and sounder tax incentives and if we remove the burden of regulations. We feel that a strong and expanding energy sector is essential to our national economy, not only to ensure security of our oil supplies and not just because the energy sector represents 30 per cent of total private investment, but also because it constitutes a major customer for businesses, both large and small, in all regions of this country.
Let us consider external trade. Guaranteed access to foreign markets is another essential element of any realistic economic recovery strategy. A number of reasons justify such a statement, the most obvious being the fact that millions of Canadian men and women are now employed in industries ranging from forestry to car manufacturing, and that they would not be working if there were no foreign markets. In turn, those jobs create others so that Canadians can respond to the needs of our exporters.
In other words, external trade creates jobs, and losing access to foreign markets means fewer jobs. It is as simple as that.
April 16, 1985

But that is not the only factor to consider. Guaranteed market access is a must if we want to compete on the international scene, as it is for creating economies of scale and competitive specializations, and for the kind of industrial adjustments that will enable us to boost our exports while at the same time coping more easily with competitive imports here in Canada. A major factor to consider before deciding to build a plant is whether or not foreign markets are readily available.
It is a decisive factor in attracting job-creating foreign investments and making sure that our national companies can expand from their Canadian base.
New technology also offers opportunities to produce new goods and services and create jobs, but above all it will protect many other jobs in existing industries through higher productivity. New technology ought to be considered as a powerful tool which will help us improve our competitiveness on international markets.
What we mean is this: it is important to develop high technology, and even more so to use that technology in traditional industries such as textiles and clothing, forestry and mining, car manufacturing, and particularly the steel industry.
That is why we put so much emphasis on research and development, just as we do on the adoption, use and expansion of the best technology available. We believe that to be crucial if we are to remain competitive and raise our standard of living.
If we want to make the best of technology, we must train and recycle young and middle-aged Canadian men and women and teach them how to use those new tools. We must also be resigned to the fact that technological advance will force some Canadian workers to keep up with this evolution. It is a fact we cannot ignore, or else we might stand to lose even more existing jobs. The workers themselves have a major role to play in coping with this evolution. We must make sure that, besides providing support income for those whose needs are temporary, our programs are consistent with the training and mobility of workers facing a bleak outlook. The answer is to give them opportunities to develop new skills and encourage workers to take a chance by seeking employment in other fields or moving to other regions.
To clear up all possible misunderstanding, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that it is important not only to create jobs that provide Canadian men and women with the major means to get their share of the wealth within the Canadian society, but it is equally important to create the wealth which Canadian men and women can share through a whole range of services, including a social security system, the purpose of which is to help those who need them and cannot provide for themselves.
These are areas which are given very high priority by our government, Mr. Speaker. We have been working on them
Supply
ever since last September, but there are no miracle cures to our economic woes, no short cuts toward creating jobs and wealth. Canadians are aware that if prosperity were the result of spending and indebtedness, it would have been ours a long time ago. But such is not the case, and we will have to work still harder and more intelligently to achieve our growth potential, a healthy and lasting growth which will help us create new jobs for all Canadian men and women who are anxious to work.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions. Comments. The Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif).


Mr. Tardif:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the somewhat intellectual discourse of the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier) whom I have often seen walking along corridors while reading impressive-looking documents. After what we have just heard, I must say that students of 16 or 17 would certainly have appreciated those remarks. But what Canadians now need most is not exalted theories, stately syntheses and lofty philosophical principles, but concrete things like jobs, jobs and more jobs. 1 can appreciate how easy it must be to blame the former administration for everything under the sun, but the fact is that September 4 was eight months ago, and I ask the following question: What have you actually done to create jobs?


Claude Lanthier: This answer calls for-


Don Boudria: It will not take long to answer that!


Claude Lanthier: Unfortunately the question calls for an answer that might be somewhat theoretical. One might give a quick answer with figures-


An Hon. Member:: You are talking about the jobs you have made Canadians lose during twenty years.


Claude Lanthier: That was not the purpose of my response. On behalf of my Department, I accept the question which requires detailed information.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: A supplementary question. The Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif).


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: If I cannot get an answer, I could perhaps deal with another aspect of the question. I agree that Canada's financial situation is rather precarious. However, how do you explain, in the light of what you have just said, that your Government has decided to invest in the neighbourhood of $50 million to change the uniforms of the Armed Forces and to increase in defence budget by some $600 million and that it recently accepted to send an additional 1,000 troops to Europe while, here in Canada, in my constituency and yours, there is such a desperate need for money to create jobs-


Mr. Blais:: Domtar!


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Exactly.

April 16, 1985
Supply


Claude Lanthier: I also accept that question and I shall reply eventually.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose some questions with reference to the deficit. The Hon. Member has spoken in customary Conservative tones with respect to this issue, as befits a Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. However, I want to ask if he would be prepared to concede that, just as we would have predicted, by trying to focus on the deficit, making it a preoccupation, we have in fact seen an increase in the deficit in this country since this Government has taken power. Secondly, would he be prepared to confirm, given the intellectual approach that was suggested, that there are of course other ways to control deficits besides reducing expenditures? For example, by increasing taxes and acting on the suggestions of our task force report, that it be no longer possible for companies to deduct the interest expense involved in taking over other companies, something the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) himself talked about at the National Economic Conference. Does he not agree that it would be a good idea for companies that have large amounts of deferred taxation to pay interest on it? Does he not agree that these too would contribute to concern about the deficit and permit the extra expenditures which would give us the jobs we need in the country? Finally, would the Member not agree that if we decreased interest rates by two to three percentage points that too would have a significant impact on the deficit in the country?
We have had varied estimates. One economist at the University of British Columbia suggested that there would be a saving of $1 billion in the deficit for each decrease of a single point in the interest rate. I myself think that is probably an over-estimate because bonds will be due in different years. At the very least, bringing interest rates down two to three percentages points would save $600 million to $900 million. That is the estimate within our report. Surely the Member would agree that all of this would give us much greater capacity to be making the essential expenditures to provide encouragement to private investment that would increase jobs in the country.


Claude Lanthier: The same applies. 1 shall accept the question on behalf of my Department, but 1 want to point out something immediately. All the qualifications which were suggested by the Hon. Member in saying that I would probably accept such or such a question are to be accepted neither by myself nor by my Department. We shall eventually provide an adequate answer to his question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Don Boudria: Yes, Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary. Early in his speech, he told us that the policy of his Government was to reduce public expenditures in order to create jobs. I am wondering whether he could be more specific and explain how eliminating jobs in the public sector can create jobs. Indeed, in my constituency and in the National Capital Region, in the area which 1 represent, if someone loses his job, this does not create any employment. The same is probably true elsewhere in the country. However, my constituents still wonder how the process of eliminating their jobs can create other jobs. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can develop this point and explain to my constituents how they can expect to find more jobs when they are being laid off?


Claude Lanthier: I do not want to be looked upon again as a theoretician, but I think that it is rather simplistic to establish a relationship between cutting expenses or eliminating a job while not understanding that cutting expenses may mean that another job is created elsewhere. There are jobs that are more meaningful than those in the public service. However, once again, I accept this question and we shall provide a reply eventually.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments? Debate. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate today on the motion presented by our New Democratic Party colleagues. First, I would like to talk about the unemployment situation in my riding. I had hoped that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier) would hear what we are saying today, so that acting on behalf of his Minister, he could create some jobs in my riding. But he is no longer with us-and I am not saying he is away from the House because that would be out of order-but let us say that I would have liked to have seen him here.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, the riding or rather part of the riding 1 represent, namely Prescott, which most of the Members of this House living in the East have had occasion to cross in travelling to their ridings-Prescott has 1,686 unemployed. That is a very high unemployment rate, and it has been for some time, increasing all the while. I can assure the House that the people in my riding who saw the results on election day remembered this Government's promises and expected the Government to create new jobs. They are still waiting, Mr. Speaker. This Government was elected eight months ago, and there has not been a single new job in my riding. In fact, there are fewer jobs now than there were on election day iast year.

Before the Government was elected it made several promises to the Canadian people. 1 have referred to them before on occasion in the House. We have put together a document


April 16, 1985

called "338 Tory Promises". I will read a few of them regarding employment, particularly unemployment amongst our youth.
During the election campaign the Government told us how it would streamline government programs and make them efficient. The most innnovative thing they could do last winter was to use some of the Canada Works Programs of the previous Government, which they had chastised before. That is not very innovative. If the programs were not good enough while they were in Opposition, one would wonder why they are all of a sudden good enough when they are in Government. Although they had only been in power for about three months, they had claimed for a few years that they were ready to take over. However, they could not organize a better winter works program. They simply used the program which was in place before, always claiming that it was no good to start with.
With regard to young people, Mr. Speaker, you will remember that the Government said it would scrap the Liberal program for youth summer employment because they felt it was not adequate and they would have a better one. Months passed, Mr. Speaker. Many people phoned their Members of Parliament asking about the youth program Challenge '85. The forms for that program were distributed by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). A little kit was sent to all Members of Parliament. The first thing I did when I got that kit was phone the Minister's office to ask for 150 application forms to give to businesses in my riding. After all, the least we could do was try to make this program work, notwithstanding the fact that it was started too late and was poorly organized.
The Minister's office said that they could not give me forms. I asked why and was told that they did not have them but that they would be at the Canada Employment centres. I argued that. I came into the House and talked to the Minister personally. Lo and behold, when I went back to my office a couple of hours later there were all kinds of forms. There was a stack of them about an inch thick, or 2.54 centimetres if you wish.
I brought those forms to my constituency office and my constituents used them and sent them to the Government. The Government then said they were the wrong forms. Do you believe this? The Minister sent them to my office and they were the wrong forms. A couple of weeks later we got new forms from the Minister. The program was supposed to end at the end of March and it was March 20 when we got the forms. There were only a few days left for all employers to apply. If the Government did not intentionally try to sabotage this program, it certainly did a very good accidental job of achieving that result.
It is now mid-April. Today businesses from my riding were contacting me asking whether I had any news about the Challenge '85 applications which they had submitted. There is nothing I can tell them. Our young people are finishing school now. Other programs are starting. They do not know whether they will be accepted by this program. They do not know whether the youth will be going to work elsewhere. They are
Supply
not sure what to do. They are waiting and we cannot get any answers.
This is not the fault of the people at the various Canada Employment centres. They did their best to make this thing work. It was so poorly designed and started so late that it was almost impossible for it to work. I cannot help but wonder how the staff working for the department managed to do anything at all. It must be very difficult for them, and I know they are working very hard, but it is impossible.
What the Government has failed to recognize is that it should have kept the previous program that was in place, made it work. When the Government was ready for a change and it had designed a new program it should have introduced it then. I recognize that the Government has the right to do what it did, it is the Government after all, but you do not cancel something and then think later of maybe doing something else. First you find alternatives and then you change. You do not do the reverse. That logic is something you would understand, Mr. Speaker, but obviously not this Conservative Government. That kind of logic has escaped this Government.
Let us review some of the promises the Government has made to young people in this 338-promise document to which I referred a while ago, Mr. Speaker. This Government made lots of promises to our youth. It was trying to get young people to knock on doors and canvass. This Government promised everything to the youth. Under youth employment, it said, "encourage young people to remain in school, ensure training components in all job creation programs, provide incentives to encourage private sector training programs, the utilization of UIC benefits for training purposes, and encourage local training councils." These councils would identify training needs and co-ordinate training programs, establish a refundable employer tax credit for employers to hire and train young people for specific periods of time.
There are 12 promises here for our young people. As far as I can see, none of them have been adopted by this Government and it is now eight months after the election. This Government has yet to fulfil one promise to our young people. It must be very disheartening. I see one Member saying to me, "Yes, we did". I do not know, perhaps this Government has appointed a person on another board that I have not heard about and that constitutes a job creation program to which the Hon. Member is referring. But this is not good enough for the rest of the young people who are waiting for a real meaningful effort on the part of their Government.
This Government when elected claimed it was ready to take over, ready to run the country. I see some Conservative Members in this House, the ones sitting at the edges on this side, what we refer to as the "book-ends" or the "surfers". Surfers means they were elected with the tide and they will go out with the tide in three years' time. The book-ends in this House are nodding in agreement that this Government was ready to take over. Why is it that this is the longest period of time after an election in the history of this country without a

April 16, 1985
Supply
budget? Is that synonymous with good government, Mr. Speaker, a Government that cannot even present its financial package to the House of Commons eight months after coming into office? Not only that, but we will have to wait another month before we get the budget.
There happens to be in the intervening month an Ontario election. Some of us say that it is a mere coincidence that an Ontario election is looming. The Tories in Ontario are not doing so well. Their popularity is going down daily. That popularity will go down a lot more before the election, and we will have the election of the next Liberal provincial government. The popularity of the Provincial Tories is going down. They know they have a noose down around their necks in the person of the federal Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson.) He will impose on the people of Canada major taxation increases and present a disastrous budget immediately after the Ontario provincial election. Then, Mr. Speaker, you can understand why it was that the Premier of Ontario paid a visit to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and that this visit had two purposes. One was to object that he had not been consulted on the western oil deal, and second, to ensure that under no circumstances would we see a federal budget before that election. As bad as the Tories are doing now provincially, they would have done worse later because of the disastrous budget we have coming. 1 am sure you, Mr. Speaker, being the nonpartisan person that you are, would understand this, although your colleagues obviously do not.
Hon. Members will remember that on November 8, 1984, the Minister of Finance introduced his program known as the Expenditure Review. This Expenditure Review program, commonly known as the "Black Thursday Program", was a program of cut-backs. Many of these cut-backs were in the area of employment. Hon. Members will recall that a little earlier I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier) how does one create employment by cutting jobs. He took notice of the question. He did not answer it.
Let me review some of the employment creation initiatives that were cut-back by the same people who said they were going to create jobs. The Employment Assistance Entitlement Program had a $200 million cut back. Let us see what this program did. The Unemployment Insurance Act provided for the establishment of an employment services program and this program was cut back. This service is now gone. The unemployment insurance payments have been cut back by $5.8 million; the mobility program was cut by $2.8 million. Let me speak briefly about mobility grants.
I have a constituent who is in Alberta at the present time. He left two or three years ago and went to work out there, but now he does not have a job. He has a job offer here in the City of Ottawa which he could take immediately. Because these mobility grants have been curtailed severely, he cannot take up this job in Ottawa. The unemployment insurance people told him that once he has exhausted his unemployment insurance benefits then they would pay him to move. If you can understand the logic of this, Mr. Speaker, I am glad. Under these new rules my constituent will have to be on unemployment for
about eight months drawing money out of the federal treasury before we give him money to come back here to a job he could have today if we were to allow him to come back. If that logic escapes you, Mr. Speaker, you are not the only one. It escapes me as well, and it escapes my constituent. Seemingly that makes sense to the Minister of Finance. Perhaps to no one else, but to him it does. To make someone draw eight months more of unemployment insurance benefit before paying the mobility grant that he could be given today, seeing that he has a job promised is the policy of this Government toward creating employment, and I do not understand it. It is small wonder that this program is not working.
On November 8, the Minister of Finance introduced that program of cut-backs to which I referred earlier and which 1 described as the "Black Thursday Program". I see that the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Andre) is here. He will recall this document that was given to Cabinet Ministers which contains the answers they were supposed to give to journalists when interviewed about the cut-backs. There were questions on the census but they have become redundant now because the census has been reinstated, as we know. I applaud the Minister for that. I know he wanted it all along. He was only trying to twist the arm of the Minister of Finance. Obviously he managed to swing it, and I am glad he did.
However, I should like to read some of the questions and answers on employment. The following was a tentative question which someone in the press was supposed to ask the Minister:
Why is employment pension income considered as earned income when eligibility for unemployment insurance is determined?
The Minister was supposed to answer as follows:
Changes in the UI program, which will result in pension income arising from employment being deducted from UI benefits, will eliminate double payments and reinforce the concept that UI is an income replacement scheme.
That is the only reason many people in the country, including military personnel and others, contributed to unemployment insurance. Otherwise they would have no possibility of collecting it. Obviously what we should do now is refund their premiums from the beginning in that we have made them join a program from which they could not benefit.
Another tentative question reads:
Whal is the object of the changes in the Employment Assistance and Entitlement Program?
The Minister is supposed to answer as follows:
A strengthened interview program for all claimants on regular benefits will better determine their needs for employment services.
Now I know from where the Minister of Employment picked up this line when she referred to it in the House. The Minister of Finance had given it to her in a briefing book. She was supposed to say it to the public. That is ridiculous. The answer given by the Minister got her no place.
In conclusion, our Party is very much dissatisfied with the efforts of this Government in creating employment.
April 16, 1985

[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we think this Government should get down to business and meet the commitments it made during the last election campaign. If they made those commitments at the time, they should have made sure they would be able to meet them. Of course today, every Canadian knows that Conservative promises are never kept.
Mir. Hudon: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question. First of all, I do not think my hon. friend was very resourceful. If he failed to find any forms for Challenge '85 projects, I think he must have been going about it the wrong way, because-


Don Boudria: I got them, but they were not the right ones.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Oh, so you were able to judge whether they were or not.
Something else. There is something I fail to understand in the Hon. Member's comments on unemployment insurance. He says that some people who have paid premiums all their lives will never have a chance to get unemployment insurance benefits. I have a question for my hon. friend. If you have been paying for fire insurance on your home all your life, are you going to set your house on fire because you did not have a chance to collect the insurance? That kind of argument does not hold water. Unemployment insurance was introduced to provide funds for people who are looking for work. Today, there are people, and this probably includes me, and I say probably who hope they never have to apply for unemployment insurance benefits. In any case, the year before I retire, I am not going to say: I had better become unemployed so that I can get back the money I invested. Unemployment insurance is not an investment, it is insurance to tide you over a bad situation.


An Hon. Member:: People have become used to thinking like that.


Jean-Guy Hudon: There are cases, and this happens with the complicity of certain companies or heads of businesses, where there are programs under which people are entitled not only to unemployment insurance benefits but also to their salary and benefits. Unemployment insurance was not meant to be used that way, and here we have people complaining loudly that it is a shame that some people will never get back any unemployment insurance benefits in return for the money they invested.
I do not understand that kind of logic. I wish my hon. friend would explain, because I do not see it. Maybe it is because like the Hon. Member, I do not understand forms.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I should be delighted to provide some explanations for the Hon. Member opposite, and slowly, if he prefers, to be sure he understands. First of all, when I referred to forms . . .1 said earlier that the forms I got from the Minister herself were not the right forms. This means that the Minister of Employment and Immigration issued forms that were incorrect. They had to be withdrawn and new forms
Supply
issued in Ontario. This is just to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister herself did not know which form was the correct one.
Now, about unemployment insurance benefits: I agree with the Hon. Member opposite that when we pay an insurance premium, we do not expect to get a return on that investment. An insurance is an insurance. Yet, Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I do that a number of years ago, several categories of people did not contribute to the Unemployment Insurance Plan because they were not likely ever to collect benefits. A case in point is the Armed Forces personnel. An unemployed soldier is a rather rare commodity. The only benefits to which they were entitled were those they could collect the very last year before they retired at age 64 or 65. Those were the only benefits they could collect. When they were allowed to join the scheme, it was done with the understanding that they would benefit one way or another. If I said to the hon. member opposite who mentioned his fire insurance that no matter how much insurance he paid for, he would not get a cent if his house was destroyed by a fire, he would certainly try to buy insurance protection elsewhere. For those people who joined the unemployment insurance scheme and who are now deprived of these last benefits, they will not get anything. Therefore, they were misled when they were allowed to join a scheme out of which they are not getting anything. And it was the Federal Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who, following his assesment of the government's programs and expenditures and his decision to make cutbacks everywhere, has excluded these people.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to add, in connection with what I was saying about the forms which are difficult to obtain in Ontario that there is in the House now a member of the Progressive Conservative Party whose staff had to call my office to borrow mine, my forms, for he was unable to obtain them from the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). And if you asked me to mention his name, I would certainly do so.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Member confirm that in the 32nd Parliament it took the Liberal Government eight months and 18 days to present a Budget, that that Government presented a financial statement on April 21, 1980 and got around to presenting a Budget on October 30 of the same year? Does he think that the attitude of this Government in presenting a financial statement on November 8 and proposing to present a Budget on May 21 was any different than the activity of the Liberal Government in the 32nd Parliament?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I guess all of Canada has now found out the date of the Budget. I am quite pleased to hear this. Now of course all Canadians are aware that the Budget date, according to the Hon. Member across the way, is now
3792

April 16, 1985
Supply
May 21. I am glad to hear that announcement. Perhaps people in the press and elsewhere have now finally found out from the Government exactly when it intends to present its Budget. It is about time it did something.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House, authored by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), suggests that unemployment should be lowered by 2.5 per cent and that the Government should commit itself to that goal. It is natural, given the content of the resolution, that reference should be made to the recently released report of the New Democratic Party task force on jobs. One might have hoped that the discussion would have been a constructive and informed one.
One was inevitably disappointed to discover that as usual the debate turned, not upon the content of the resolution, the content of the report or the exercise that resulted in its production. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) stood before us and told us that the report of the New Democratic Party job action group was constructive, interesting, had some good suggestions, and then proceeded to criticize it, not on the basis of its content, but on press report after press report. It soon became clear that that was the only source of information to which she could refer.
That should not have been particularly surprising. The Minister of Employment and Immigration knew almost as much about her Challenge '85 student summer employment program as she did about the task force report. She insists on reiterating what she said when the program was announced. She said it will be based on wage subsidized career-oriented jobs which will prepare students for the work world.
The fact is that although she claims there are larger numbers of applications than there were previously, the criteria that would have produced the kinds of jobs that she was going to achieve were not being applied. The fact is that no applications involving fewer than four student employees is being subjected to any test of whether or not the jobs are career oriented. That is fine.
In the sense that jobs are created, and the Minister reverted to a few standards, indeed reverted to standards which are less rigorous than Summer Canada, her claim that more jobs are being created may in fact be correct. Many of us who would have expected her to achieve the goals she indicated thought she would have attempted to ensure that there was some measure of career orientation, that permanent jobs were not being lost, that the career content of those jobs would be supervised to ensure their achievement during the period of employment. We were also concerned about the fact that in contrast to Summer Canada of last year, there is no affirmative action portion, in spite of Government commitments to the contrary, which would have assured reasonable participation by natives, women, visible minorities and ethnic groups.
We heard the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), who was similarly well informed about the document, insisting that the document surely had to be the result of going from city to city across this country, some 24 of them, and speaking only to supporters of the New Democratic Party. It was kind of exciting news, at least to this Member, to discover that the Canadian Automobile Parts Manufacturers, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, association of small businesses, and women's organizations all across this country support not the Liberals or the Conservatives, but the New Democratic Party. Similarly, small woodlot owners, industry associations, forest industry associations are all suddenly New Democratic Party supporters. Of course that is nonsense. There was no discrimination in the selection of those who appeared before us.
There was one thing that came out of the whole exercise loud and clear. It was that the priority of this House should be the creation of jobs. Some Members opposite will remember when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that "we are going to see tens of thousands of jobs being created just as quickly as the new Government is sworn in". He has encountered some impediments. We decided to take him at his word, his word having been that he, in spite of his Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and others on that side of the House, was interested in job creation. If one refers to some of the statements made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign, he will see that the Prime Minister said that we are going to get local communities and small business more involved in job creation. This is going to be accomplished by a program of community self-help which will be launched through the establishment of the Canada Opportunity Development Board. But it should be noted that he did not say exactly what this board would do. There are 70 recommendations in this report which specify what such kinds of community economic development boards might do and how they might be encouraged by the Government.
We should pause for just a moment to consider some of the other criticisms which we have heard from across the way. We have heard that the New Democratic Party proposes that all of the solutions to employment must be achieved by direct government investments, the implication being the take-over of industry and everything else. I would suggest that Members opposite look at the report. They will find that there is very little relationship to that stereotype. What we have attempted to do is to present to the Government some suggestions by which it might approach the goal that the Prime Minister indicated he was attempting to achieve.
The issue of job creation has been laid aside by and large in an effort to combat the deficit, as if knocking down or cutting the deficit were not only an economic imperative but a moral imperative. It is kind of interesting to hear the rhetoric of the deficit cutters. I suppose that many of them have not noticed that this kind of commitment, which has been cited as having been made in British Columbia, has failed. Indeed, it has increased the amount of unemployment, cut the number of jobs and placed a number of businesses in serious difficulty. On the contrary, in Manitoba, where the converse approach was taken, jobs were created.
April 16, 1985

If one looks at various western nations which have attempted to solve their economic problems by using the cutting of the deficit as a target, he will see that they too have failed. On the contrary, one should look at the very interesting Canadian experience during World War II where the deficit achieved levels amounting to 21 per cent of Gross National Expenditures and averaged some 17 per cent of the GNE for a three-year period, yet the rate of unemployment was cut from 11.2 per cent to about 1 per cent and the deficit was wiped out in about three years.
Members may consider that this is irrelevant, that it is a question of expenditures for wartime. However, it is interesting to note that those who preach supply side economics are completely unconscious of the fact that products will not be bought by unemployed consumers. In the United States, where supply side economics and deficit cutting has been preached, indeed preached from the pulpit, deficits have accumulated on the basis of military expenditures, and this has indeed resulted in jobs and economic growth. Canadians across this land fear that our new dependency on the United States will hook us to the philosophy sometimes articulated in this Chamber that we can create jobs by increased military expenditures, by becoming starry-eyed about star wars.
There is one thing we have found across this country that should be clearly enunciated here. In spite of the high rates of unemployment and a deep sense of concern about the future of families, young people and people of all ages, Canadians have become convinced, and we heard this from one ocean to the other, that this country has the resources. It has the human talent to determine its own economic future and to create jobs without turning beyond our borders for help. Just as we do not want to look to Washington or New York for the solutions to our problems in respect to economic growth and job creation, so too do the regions reject the notion that the solution to our ecnomic difficulties and job-creation problems is to be found in the centralized bureaucracy not only of government but of the exploitative profit making of large corporations.
There is nowhere in this report where the New Democratic Party proposes to reject the involvement of large corporations and businesses in job creation. However, it does insist that whether they be a domestic or foreign company, they be obliged to fulfil the needs of Canadians with respect to job creation, increased exports, increased research and development and all of those things which are necessary for the creation of jobs in this country.
To return to the statement by the Prime Minister indicating that he looked to creating community development agencies, I wish Members opposite would read the report because there are constructive suggestions contained therein, the common thread of which is shared by people all across the country. We do have the resources. We are tired of having those resources exploited by others for the benefit of others while we in our regions and communities suffer job losses. We know that the forests, the fisheries, the agricultural sector and any of our
Supply
natural resources have the potential through secondary manufacturing to create jobs, the kinds of jobs we in the local regions understand best. Those sectors can give us the wherewithal by which to do it.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration stood before us supposedly discussing this document and said that they are going to do all kinds of new things with respect to training, retraining, preparing young people for jobs and preparing older people for the necessity of adapting to new jobs. That is fine. However, it is insufficient in the magnitude in which she has proposed it because it only addresses part of the report. There is not much sense in training or retraining people if the jobs are not there.
There now exists considerable literature on how municipal Governments in co-operation with other sectors of the community can engage in analyses of the advantages and disadvantages of the resources, both human and otherwise, that are available, and to engage in long-term planning so that priorities can be established which will allow the growth of co-operatives, small businesses and means by which jobs can be produced based upon the resources possessed by the local communities. When we talk of a government expenditure of $850 million for community development incentives, we are not talking about spreading money around, we are talking at least in part about providing communities not only with the means of financing by with tax changes which will encourage local investment and will provide the kind of expert help that is often needed in order for communities to engage in these activities.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities recognizes the merit of this approach. I would advise Members opposite to read the report of the New Democratic Party and to read the recommendations of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. If they did so, they would realize that with a very small increase in the deficit, jobs can be created with increased emphasis on local initiatives and less dependency on megaprojects.
We have been told that Members of the New Democratic Party have suddenly realized the problems associated with deficits. I do not know where in the world this attitude arose, but I will say that if the recommendations of our report were followed, the amount of deficit that would be accumulated would be no greater than the tax forgivenesses obtained by the oil companies as a result of the Western Accord, and there would be the production of far more jobs.
I hope that over the coming weeks members of the government Party and of the Official Opposition will engage in a very carefully reading of our document. I am not going to suggest for a moment that it provides the final answer to all of the questions that are being posed by the Canadian people, but, by God, the least Hon. Members can do is look at alternative answers rather than engaging in an ideological and partisan debate that has no reference to the recommendations made, or to the needs of the Canadian people. If they do that, then we will all have at least shared in the opportunity promised by the Prime Minister for all of us, and for all Canadian people to be

April 16, 1985
Business of the House
consulted in an effort to achieve not a cut deficit as a goal but jobs as not only a goal but as a moral imperative.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would take this occasion to very briefly announce the proposed business and arrangements for tomorrow. In terms of the business, it is my intention to call Bill C-36, an Act to amend the Aeronautics Act, a Bill which is at second reading debate stage. This will be followed by Bill C-18, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, a Bill which is at the report stage.
There may be a disposition to deal with item No. 17 under the heading of Government Business on the Order Paper, the CN pension reference. If my discussions with members of the New Democratic Party in particular are concluded satisfactorily tomorrow morning, I would be inclined to call that item as the first item of business tomorrow. There will be a limit number of speakers on that particular matter.
As well, we have agreement between all Parties to have statements made tomorrow when the House convenes at 2 p.m. regarding the Charter of Rights equality provisions. The understanding is that there will be one speaker per Party taking approximately five-minutes. There was an agreement, therefore, that we would move back Statements Pursuant to Standing Order 21 as well as Question Period to allow by unanimous consent those statements to be made at the top of the afternoon. If you were to seek unanimous consent for these proposals, Mr. Speaker, I think you would find that they would meet with the satisfaction of all Members.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, we have indeed been consulted and would be agreeable with regard to the statement proposed by the Hon. Government House Leader provided, of course, that the Question Period which will be pushed back will last a full 45 minutes. With regard to the other items of business, we have to go along with the wishes of the Government.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, statements will be made at 2 p.m., followed by the normal 15 minutes of Statements Pursuant to Standing Order 21, followed by the Question Period. After we have completed the CN pension reference, Bill C-36 and Bill C-18, what does the Hon. President of the Privy Council propose to do; that is, after four o'clock?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my consultations have led me to believe that we would be prepared to move on to third reading of Bill C-18, but I am not sure there is a disposition to do so. However, I am prepared to consider that if there is time available. I would be happy to carry on and to conclude that debate.
I should say that on Thursday it is my intention to bring forward Bill C-39, a Bill relating to equalization. That item will certainly be brought forward, depending upon the progress
we make on tomorrow's legislation. I intend to bring that item forward for debate on Thursday in any event.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It is my understanding that the Hon. President of the Privy Council does not have that in writing. The House has heard the suggestion. Is there unanimous consent to proceed on this matter tomorrow?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Agreed and so ordered.


BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Langdon:
That this House calls upon the Government to immediately bring in stimulative proposals to reduce unemployment by a minimum of 2.5 per cent within the next 12 months, given the failure of the Government to live up to its commitment to make job creation its number one priority, and its pursuit, instead, of a policy of cut-backs which has led to a rise in unemployment in three of the last four months.
Mr. McKenzie:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy). In this Party we believe in investment coming into Canada. We believe that foreign investment is one of the means by which to create jobs. I have seen how the Canadian investment which has been flowing out of this country since 1976 has created thousands of jobs in the United States. Canadian investors have developed in Texas, Florida, California, Kentucky and other states because there was not a healthy investment climate in Canada. However, they do not invest there, build a plant and then close it down and go away, as has been suggested by some Members. That is why we support investment from foreign countries coming into Canada to create jobs.
In the 1960s the provincial Government in Manitoba held a large economic and investment conference in Winnipeg. It was attended by U.S. and European investors. The policy of encouraging foreign investment has been adopted by the current NDP Government of Manitoba. It is holding investment seminars in the United States to encourage investment. The NDP Government of Manitoba has a policy to encourage foreign investment. American investors are going to Manitoba to invest. That will create jobs. It is a policy which has been adopted from previous Conservative Governments in Manitoba. I would like to ask the Hon. Member, as the federal NDP is opposed to foreign investment, does he support what the NDP Government of Manitoba is doing, which is encouraging foreign investment in that province to create jobs, or does he have a separate policy from that of the NDP Government in Manitoba?
April 16, 1985


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Hon. Member seems not to have paid any attention to what 1 said. Let me reiterate. Canadian people are saying that the future of this country can not be predicated on foreign investment. That is not to say that foreign investment should not be had. Canadians are saying that they want control over the economic destiny of this country. If there is to be foreign investment then it should be conditional, as it is in Manitoba, on the creation of jobs for Canadians.
The fact of the matter is that experts in the United States have pointed out in the strongest terms that there is an improbability of large investment in Canada for anything but basic resources, not secondary manufacturing. That will mean a deficit in jobs. If there is to be foreign investment in Canada then it should be conditional on meeting the needs of Canadians, whether the needs be jobs, ensuring that research that research and development is performed or that exports are encouraged elsewhere. I cannot understand why the Hon. Member would reject those factors as reasonable requirements for foreign investors.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, at no time have we ever suggested that we wanted investment to come into Canada which would not create jobs and do something worthwhile. I do not know if the Hon. Member is trying to imply that the Government is saying that money is to come in, that it will not go to any place and do nothing. Naturally, foreign investors will come forward with a proposal. The purpose of encouraging foreign investment is to create jobs, not just to encourage money to come into Canada. I do not know what the Hon. Member is trying to suggest. We will ensure that it will do something worthwhile for Canada. That is the purpose of it. He is trying to intimate that we are not interested in Canada or Canadian jobs. Most certainly we are. By the sound of it, he has been reading from out investment paper, because what he said is exactly what we have proposed and what we would do if foreign investment came into this country. We would ensure that it would stay here and create jobs.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, that was an extraordinary exercise but an extremely confused response. I do not know whether Hon. Members have noticed, but Investment Canada imposes no requirements on foreign investment. No one suggested that in some vague sense the Government is not interested in creating jobs. The real issue is; Does it know how to create jobs? That is the question.
I am not in this House to tell the Hon. Member about the opinion of this Party or my opinion. I have described the view of Canadians. They want to control the destiny of the country. They do not want someone else doing it. In particular, they do not want the Canadian economy to be tied to star wars or the priorities of the Americans.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, the latest Gallup poll would indicate that we have the support of the Canadian people. Our Party has just risen three points in the Gallup poll. So, if what the Hon. Member is saying is correct, I am sure we would hear something about it. I am not hearing those kinds of protests
Supply
from my constituents or others. They have complete faith in us. They realize when we are talking about foreign investment that we want to create jobs.
As to the Hon. Member's comments regarding star wars, it is not to bring nuclear weapons into this country. We are talking about research, not developing nuclear weapons. In no way have we ever said that we would support any star wars concept which would develop nuclear weapons. However, we are in the space age today. There is no use burying your head in the sand. We had better get involved in space development in Canada, as will other countries. There is nothing wrong with that as long as it has nothing to do with developing bombs.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I believe it was Bacon who asserted that politicians had some greater responsibility at times than to reflect popular opinion, and that it was necessary for politicians, who represent the leadership of the country, to engage in a little thought. It is certainly not to engage in thought to refer to the polls as the response to an idea. Surely the Member must understand-and I do not think it is beyond his comprehension to understand-that engaging in research in star wars is unacceptable to many people of this country. It is unacceptable as a means of job creation. There are too many needs in this country that, if met, would create jobs. It is not necessary to resort to defence spending as a means of job creation for that purpose.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to make a short comment in response to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie). The last time he came back from South Africa he tried to speak the truth and explain to us that Canada could learn lessons from that nation. I am not surprised that he does not have an understanding of where the world is really at. If I could be allowed to deviate for a second, a couple of years ago the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assinib-oine came back from South Africa-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) knows full well that that has nothing to do and is not related to the subject-matter which the House is discussing today.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I had every plan in the world to leave it, but one Member on the government side did not appear to understand the record of the Hon. Member on human rights.
The Hon. Member who spoke before on behalf of the New Democratic Party was a member of city council in Windsor. He has had a lot of experience in that area. One of the main suggestions of the New Democratic Party job action task force on jobs was the creation of jobs for Canadians by having certain projects such as waterworks, sewers and other infrastructures done by municipalities. If the Hon. Member could spend a few moments explaining that to us, I think it would be of value to the House.
37%

April 16, 1985
Supply


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, there is not the slightest question in this world that municipalities all across this country have needs in infrastructure which have to be met. These involve roads, sewers, water supplies, waterworks, every manner of infrastructure. Reconstruction is required to a cost of around $12 billion. A tremendous number of jobs will be created, so this is a reasonable investment. It is an investment just as valuable as star wars.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Now we know why you are at 17 in the polls.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The period for questions and comments is now ended. We will resume debate.

The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Hudon).


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, the motion which is before the House now and which I must try to deal with is nothing more than a piece of rhetoric on the part of the New Democratic Party, which calls upon the Government to bring in immediately stimulative proposals to reduce unemployment by 2Vi per cent within the next 12 months, and blames the Government for not living up to its commitment to make job creation its number one priority.
On the other hand, we know that this motion is intended as the end result, the crowning piece of the famous report which a group of members of that party brought forth following their visit through various parts of the country in an effort to get support for their ideas, judging from media reports both during and after their tour. With what result? I do not intend to play politics with that, Mr. Speaker. I will merely quote from what was reported in the papers. For instance, here is a Canadian Press article signed by Eric Courchesne which stated that their report was merely an extension of the NDP platform, and 1 quote:

"its recommendations are in large part an expansion of earlier NDP proposals".

Anthony Westell, a Toronto Star columnist, has written that the NDP task force, "having started as a lion in January to solve the unemployment problem, has given birth to a mouse in April". In addition, Carol Goar of The Toronto Star has recorded a diversion in NDP philosophy, as others have, when she wrote on April 11 that "the New Democrats, after promoting for at least two decades a vigorous centralizing strategy" have been getting throughout the country "a signal telling them that interventions must obtain at the local and municipal levels".
By the way, Mr. Speaker, this is what this Government has promoted and accomplished through a policy which I will discuss later on and which is based on a more practical cooperation with other levels of government and the private sector.
On the evening the NDP report was published, we heard similar comments on television. For instance, Robert Duffy said that the report contained-

"pretty traditional ideas. It sounded like the conservative ideas about the deficit".

Indeed, many analysts have pointed out that the New Democrats were no longer in favour of an unrestrained deficit, and as noted in The Toronto Star:

"backed away from the traditional NDP position that much bigger government deficits are needed to curb unemployment".

In other words, they agree to a deficit, but not necessarily to an overly large deficit.
Then again columnist Don McGillivy has written that: [English]
"the action group's report is fairly confused and confusing on what should be done to create jobs".
Mr. Speaker, that report was published on April 10, and it carried so much interest that it was a mere five days later, on April 15, that the Journal de Montreal paid any attention to it in an article entitled:
The NDP proposes the creation of 300,000 jobs.
Yes, five days later. In addition, on April 15, the newspaper Le Devoir also had an article on this important report which said, and I quote:
-announced last week.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, that new report was readily recognized as being old hat and its authors acknowledged that a centralizing policy of unrestrained expenditures with no thought being given to the deficit was no longer saleable. On the other hand, as the Minister of Employment and Immigration said during the debate this morning, the New Democrats must still be congratulated on having admitted that their policies could go no further, or at least not as far as they had suggested until then, in other words on having recognized the effectiveness of this Government's initiatives.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the strategy of this Government, which 1 shall now discuss, is not the perfect solution for, in a world where every country is faced with unemployment problems, if there were any magic solution, it would already have been found and implemented. However, there are alternate options, and it is in support of these options that the
April 16, 1985

Canadian people expressed their views last September, and it is also what has guided the policy of this Government since then, both in the economic statement made by the Minister of Finance on November 8 and in the many consultations undertaken by a great number of Ministers, such as the Minister of Employment and Immigration, before the new strategy was announced at the Federal-Provincial Conference in Regina and the National Economic Conference held here in Ottawa a few weeks ago.
One of the Government's objectives has been to launch a national dialogue and restore-especially in the private sector, which is the driving force of our economy-a climate of confidence designed to promote the establishment of new industries and the expansion or reorientation of many others already in operation. This has been the purpose of the initiatives I have just referred to, and of the new orientations with which 1 am more familiar in my current responsibilities as Parliamentary Secretary, namely job creation and manpower training, whereas more emphasis has been laid on practical training, practical jobs, and closer coordination between the provincial and federal Governments and the private sector.
Mr. Speaker, the employment outlook is already much brighter, a fact which was confirmed a few days ago in Montreal when I attended the seminar of an association of college and university employment whose role, as Hon. Members know, is to make it easier for university and college graduates to join the labour market. I was told that this year more graduates will be able to land jobs in their own field of specialization and that chances are better that those jobs will turn out to be permanent.
Employers have regained confidence in the future of our national economy, and so have workers who are rejoining the labour market in ever increasing numbers. The over-all employment statistics reflect that encouraging trend, but the main point is that such a change in attitude can only contribute to make the situation even better.
With respect to manpower training and job creation, the Government has made a special effort to simplify programs, a sector which has been highlighted by the new labour market development strategy, while much duplication has been eliminated, with the result that we are getting better cooperation from the provinces, including Quebec, as everybody knows.
New formulas have also been designed so that the programs will be more readily accessible to all Canadians, including some people who need special assistance such as, for example, the handicapped, native people, and others who are often called quitters or drop-outs. I would be remiss if I failed to mention in passing that the Minister of Employment and Immigration announced a few weeks ago an employment equality program which was unanimously greeted as a historic step in the evolution of the status of women in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the new labour market development strategy is clearly geared to future manpower requirements in Canada,
Supply
yet it does take into consideration the current technological revolution which is changing our lives at an ever accelerating rate.
In addition, instead of being designed for the short term-if that were so, as was the practice until now, the workers would not be getting anywhere-most of our programs will henceforth be extended over many years so as to ensure better coordination and greater practical efficiency.
The Challenge '85 Program for the benefit of young people this summer was given a more practical approach particularly to provide them with jobs along the line of the careers they have chosen. We also know that the private sector will play a greater role in it and recent figures provided this morning by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) on results attained so far indicate that the program is understood-that there are people who do not even understand the formulas is beyond me-supported and, despite the concerns expressed in some circles, will succeed far beyond initial expectations. Again, the co-operation not only with private enterprise but with the provinces and municipalities has been beneficial. The young are more confident and I repeat that I was able to see that for myself when I recently attended the convention of the University and College Placement Association held in Montreal on March 28 last.
If time allows, Mr. Speaker, I should like to indicate on what six main bases lies the new labour market development strategy that the Minister of Employment and Immigration announced at the recent federal-provincial conference in Regina. The first allotment of $80 million was earmarked for manpower training. The second allotment of $350 million for employment development is designed to help people who have been without work for a long time and need retraining to land a job.
In that respect, the Minister of Employment and Immigration pointed out last March 19 that these new programs will have to meet the needs of the regions, be flexible, and call for community participation. The Government and the private sector must share responsibilities. On March 19, the Minister also stressed the fact that small business must play a leading role. Mr. Speaker, there is the third allotment of $125 million for vocational integration. Those are programs for youths who are school drop-outs and unable to find employment, as well as for a great number of women who want to join the labour force for the first time.
These programs are aimed at specific groups and have been set up with the co-operation of the provinces. They feature counselling, training and actual job experience. They are also designed to help the handicapped, native people and other underprivileged groups.
The fourth part is a $40 million program for the development of communities, to assist towns and cities whose economy is often based on one or two industries in trouble or even forced out of business. Obviously, co-operation is essential in that area not only between senior governments but also with

April 16, 1985
Supply
the municipalities and industries concerned. All federal departments which could provide some assistance are also involved.
Fifthly, Mr. Speaker, innovation will be encouraged through a program with a budget of $100 million during the 1985-86 fiscal year to stimulate innovation in the labour market through new pilot projects and new undertakings in the private sector. This also includes the re-entry of women on the labour market, the alternance between work and education and pilot projects for the restructuration of working conditions.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, before concluding, the sixth part of the new strategy for the development of the labour market will have at its disposal $65 million to eliminate any manpower shortage. Indeed, in spite of the high rate of unemployment, some employers are looking desperately for qualified workers. This program is aimed at improving prospects concerning future needs of the private sector and to make sure that employers hire more women.
Before concluding, if you allow me to borrow terms usually used by grammarians, I would say that we did not go from the imperfect to past perfect, but we have surely made some improvements.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments? Resuming debate.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the motion we have before us today deals with a very important matter, the joblessness people are still experiencing in Canada despite all the promises we had in the last election. I was part of the jobs action group of the NDP and many of the proposals brought forward by my colleagues today came out of the consultations we had in a large number of communities from coast to coast. We started in St. John's, Newfoundland, where unemployment is very high, and went right across to Vancouver Island on the West Coast. Since I have a very short time left to me, let me just highlight some of the very constructive proposals which came from these communities for creatively working at dealing with the unemployment rate and making job creation a priority of the Government instead of slashing programs.
These communities told us they wanted local initiatives. They wanted producer co-ops and community development in their own communities controlled by them. They told us they were tired of having multinational corporations coming into their communities, extracting resources, making money and leaving. We heard this all across Canada. As a result, one of the proposals was that there be special funds available for community initiatives, ensure that co-ops and community development and not government corporations qualify for existing business assistance. The report suggests that there be reduced tax rates on community initiatives, that there be marketing and financial management assistance, and that employees in communities have the right of first refusal to purchase the assets of a company which would otherwise be shutting down. In that way they could keep the company going and see that the profits get ploughed back into the community.
It suggests that the federal Government itself give its business to credit unions and caisses populaires which are prepared to finance community projects. This is a way of putting our own public money into businesses which will aid other businesses.
We should see that a community diversification fund is established, funded by profits made in single industry towns by the corporations, so that the community would not be struck dead when the plant has a shutdown, temporary or long term. There should be an extension of tax credits, like political tax credits, to individuals who donate to voluntary and charitable organizations which produce new jobs. These are constructive and important proposals and we wish the Government would listen and include them in the Budget will be coming down next month.
Another important point made to us by communities hit by unemployment came from women's groups because they are still hit harder by unemployment than men, and when they are working, are still earning less money. One of the important points these groups made is that the service jobs which have expanded enormously in the last decade, jobs in education, health care and child care, have been cut back through federal and provincial Government so called restraint programs. This is something I think a Conservative Government really has to pay attention to. The ideological blinders the Conservatives wear keep them from developing public sector jobs because of their preference for the public sector, regardless of the cost in jobs or to women. These are good jobs which mean improvement in the quality of life for Canadians. We are not just talking about jobs for the sake of jobs but jobs which will actually improve the way Canadians live. These jobs have been very important for women who have improved their chances enormously in the last decade through the expansion of this sector, and they are the people who are hit by the compressions budgetaires in this sector.
Finally, I would like to point to the youth initiative fund we have proposed. While a tenth of adults are unemployed, a fifth of young people are unemployed in Canada. This is shocking. Young people coming out of school can look to long periods of job search, and often not end up with jobs at all. We have proposed a youth initiative fund, initially at $600 million, for new initiatives in community and social services, energy conservation, environmental protection and arts and culture. This would produce some 40,000 new jobs, an important and constructive proposal.
Let me also, as the arts and culture critic for the NDP caucus, say that we heard from arts and culture groups. This part of the economy has an enormous job potential. It is growing, and even with cutbacks in Government funding over the last decade more people have been going into arts and culture because the audience is there and Canadians want to see expansion in this area. It is a simple fact that for every dollar put into arts and culture expenditure, there is a six-fold return, compared to dollars put into manufacturing, because such a high proportion of this funding comes back in salaries
April 16, 1985

and is returned to government in taxes and can be ploughed back for further investment. Money spent by government in arts and culture means good jobs for Canadians, which in turn improves the quality of life of Canadians.
In conclusion I would like to point out that the proposals which the NDP caucus has brought forward are very constructive. We have the evidence of other countries with social democratic governments, and of the Government of Manitoba which has instituted constructive proposals and job initiation funds with the result of lower unemployment and economic growth. We know it can be done. We are not talking about abstract theories. We are talking about realities where people and governments put jobs and building communities first. It can be done and we propose the measures to do it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The debate being concluded, 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.

Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the adjournment debate, following up on a question I asked on April 2 of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). The question dealt with the recent report of Conservative Members on the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration which suggested that our immigration levels be increased in the coming years largely with immigrants who are entrepreneurs. In very simple, everyday language the recommendation suggested that immigration increases should only involve rich immigrants.
My question on April 2 was whether the Minister agreed with this premise and whether she was prepared to act on it, or whether she was prepared to replace that with a thorough and genuine parliamentary process in close concert with Canadians. At the time the Minister was not in the House. The Acting Minister got up, ranted and raved, but went around the issue quite nicely. I am hopeful that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister will provide some sense of leadership and given an answer to the question.
Adjournment Debate
My Party and I are certainly not opposed to having entrepreneurs consider Canada their new home. We encourage and support that. In fact, the entrepreneur stream within the immigration policy was instituted by this Party while it was in Government. However, we feel that rich immigrants should not be the cornerstone of an immigration policy. To embark on this path would be to turn back the clock on what has been the development of a progressive and compassionate policy within the context of a multicultural and multilingual Canada. That policy values the principle of family re-unification and the principle of assisting family streams so that Canadians can have the opportunity of sponsoring relatives and friends from abroad.
I would like to quote the recommendation which is really the essence of the report. It is Item 9 under Economic Considerations. It reads:
When the economic consideration is paramount in increasing the immigration level, then the fundamental principle should be the active recruitment of people who are either self-supporting, or who can clearly contribute to the growth of the Canadian economy. For example: those who fit current regulations for entrepreneurial immigration ... bring with them investment capital which they will use to create new jobs and export potential,... self-employed immigrants, etc. The current consultation process for 1986 should focus on ways to encourage, in every possible way, increasing the number of people whose immigration to Canada would enhance our economic capacity.
A recent article in The Toronto Star quoted the chairman of that Standing Committee who suggested that the ideal immigrant:
-should come from a developed nation, preferably the U.S. or one of the Western European countries-should have a good business background, equity capital in the neighbourhood of $500,000 and an impulse to create.
I am surprised that the chairman did not go further and propose that specifications on an individual's hair colour, weight and height be added to the list of criteria that he has outlined for this Parliament.
The essence of the matter is that the guts of this report completely overlooks the contributions that thousands upon thousands of poor and average income immigrants have made to this country, and that the Government is trying to suggest that if you do not happen to be rich then you have not or cannot contribute to the economic growth of this country. That premise is completely false. The premise is that thousands of immigrants, poor and average income immigrants, have contributed to this country and have taken jobs. They have become successful businessmen, and that will continue to be the case in future.
The direction is very worrisome but the process by which the directions were formulated are equally as worrisome, Mr. Speaker. There was not one single witness outside of employment and immigration employees to appear before the committee. There was not one ethno-cultural group invited, nor one immigrant aid society, nor one union, nor one professor, nor one economist. Nor was any economic study done on this question.

April 16, 1985
Adjournment Debate


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Hudon).
[ Translation]


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, even though I have here a prepared answer, I wish nevertheless to elaborate on the assertion that has just been made by my colleague. "The process is worrisome" .. . Well, the House of Commons has decided to set up committees to study specific problems and we have heard some witnesses. It should be said as well that there may have been more witnesses than opposition members during the committee sittings.
We have heard witnesses and we have never come to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker, whereby the policy of family reunification was set aside. This policy remains a priority, as well as the one concerning refugees. Immigration covers many aspects, it is a large area in which many possibilities are explored and we have decided, within that framework, to stress this particular aspect. This does not mean however that other areas are overlooked. Is the Minister going to answer? As you may see when you read the last paragraph of the report, the Minister has a number of days to give her reply. Why does the Hon. Member claim right now that the Minister has not answered since she has a few days to do it? We are trying to put the emphasis on one specific area in order to encourage entrepreneurs who will also create jobs to come to this country. This does not mean that we give up family reunification. It is recognized that they are consumers, as well as the people whom you call "regular or ordinary". It is widely recognized but we are allowed, as a committee, to stress one particular group which we would like to see coming to Canada in larger numbers.
This is the substance of the report and the Hon. Minister will table in the House, within the deadline provided in our Standing Orders, the report or the reply concerning those recommendations. But this report must be considered in its particular outlook. We were studying the case of entrepreneurs as we are now beginning to study that of refugees. When the committee studies and tables a report on refugees, it will not mean that entrepreneurs will be left aside. We must look at all possibilities within an immigration policy which the Minister undertook to review under the revision process and this is what committees are here for. We hear witnesses, we table a report, a reply will be forthcoming from the Department and in the meantime, we will continue to consider all other aspects.


REQUEST FOR MORATORIUM ON TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES. (B) DEBATE ON LEGISLATION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on a question I asked the Minister of
Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) today about a series of spills of PCBs which occurred just a few days ago between Thunder Bay and Kenora, eventually discovered when the truck in question pulled into a gas station in Kenora.
Before following up on my question, I should just like to say that this kind of incident was bound to happen. It was only a matter of time, really, before our collective negligence-and I say collective negligence because I am not trying to point the finger at anyone in particular-with respect to the transportation of dangerous goods caught up with us. This incident is a sign of those practices having caught up with us, as it happens to have occurred before the regulations, which are supposed to be in place as a result of the transportation of dangerous goods Bill, took effect.
One has to ask why it takes so long to get regulations in place. I ask that question not just of this Government but of all Governments. I certainly had the impression when we passed the transportation of dangerous goods legislation in the House a couple of years ago that certain things would come into effect and that people could breathe a little easier about the transportation of dangerous goods. However, that turns out not to be the case. I know there have been some regulations with respect to rail transportation, but the ones having to do with road transportation apparently have not come into effect. One just wonders why there cannot be a more speedy process when it comes to the regulations which follow legislation.
I put my question to the Minister in a very non-partisan and objective way about having a moratorium on any further shipments of these kinds of substances between now and July 1 when the new regulations will come into effect. The Minister responded by going into a tirade about the NDP wanting to see the regulations back when the Bill was passed. Then he brought up the question of the new aeronautics Bill. In all these cases we have not tried to prevent speedy passage of legislation. All we argue is that it would be nice if at the same time we were able to see the regulations. That is the substance of what is going on.
It would be nice if the House of Commons actually had the opportunity sometime to see what are the regulations that follow such legislation. I know the Hon. Member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) has been of that opinion himself, having spent many years on the transport committee. It would be nice if Members of Parliament did not just have a set of principles in front of them, but actually something about which they could seek opinions with respect to effectiveness. That is all the NDP has ever argued for in that regard. I am sorry the Minister decided to be so defensive about it and did not answer the question whether we would consider a moratorium between now and July 1, although I took it from his answer that he would not consider it.
This brings up the larger question of how we as a society face up to the fact that we have created all this waste. Our way of life, particularly since the second world war, with increasing dependence on synthetic substances, for instance, has created mountains of waste which we now do not know what to do with. Sooner or later we will have to face up to the
April 16, 1985

fact that in our way of life, or in our way of doing things, whether for profit, convenience, efficiency or whatever, we have in a way sown the wind and reaped the whirlwind. We are reaping the whirlwind now in that we have this manifold list of problems we have to deal with, whether it is toxic wastes in the Great Lakes, the transportation of PCBs, acid rain or whatever. These are just a few examples-perhaps the ones which have been given more attention-of the ways in which our way of life is catching up with us. We have to face difficult questions about whether we continue, even with regulations, to transport these dangerous wastes from one province to another, across the country from Ontario or Quebec to Alberta, or whether we opt for the option of having indigenous waste disposal. That is to say having it happen on a province by province basis so that we do not subject areas in between to the risks that will inevitably remain, in spite of whatever kind of regulations we adopt.
It is clear that we need to reduce our dependence on these substances. This will not help with respect to PCBs. PCBs have already been banned. It is just a question of dealing with the PCBs we already have. There are many other substances which are continually coming into existence as a result of technological and scientific innovation. We will only find out years from now the environmental effects. We need to ask ourselves whether we want to become even more dependent on these kinds of substances, or whether we want to begin to find ways of lessening this dependence. That is the direction we ought to go. Instead of looking for the next technological fix, we ought to be considering ways of using more natural substances, substances which do not pose the dangers that these pose.
Finally, I might say to the Government that it would find there would be a great deal of public support for this. It is one of the tragedies of the cuts that have taken place with respect to the environment. People are willing to support government spending when it comes to environmental protection. They do not want to see cut-backs in that area. There are plenty of things they would like to see cut, but environmental protection is not one of them. If this Government could sense that and go ahead and spend whatever it has to spend and do whatever it has to do face up to the problem of interprovincial transport of dangerous goods-acid rain, toxic wastes in the Great Lakes or wherever it happens to be-it would find there would be no public outcry whatsoever. Instead, there would be a collective sigh of relief that we finally have a Government that is not afraid to spend that kind of money and do what is needed to be done.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome and of course share the concerns expressed by the Hon. Member with respect to this matter. I must advise him that it is simply not within the power of the federal Government alone to accede to the recommendation he puts forward. Such a sweeping prohibition
Adjournment Debate
is simply not within the federal Government's capacity alone to effect.
Transportation of dangerous goods is a complex subject involving the interests of federal, provincial and municipal authorities. It involves a variety of authorities at all levels. It involves the necessity of the federal, provincial and municipal Governments acting in concert. To act in concert there must be a rationalized, harmonious compilation of all of the existing regulations that are dedicated to the very fair proposition the Member has put forward. It is fair in the sense of the concern that all Canadians have. It is a concern that the residents of the Kenora River area have had in the last day or two and will have until the formal investigation is completed, the results are known and the follow-up work and acitivities can take place. The regulations we are dealing with pick up the responsibility that we must face to industry and to society in general.
I have to use the term impassioned plea, but I understand from whence it came. On the other hand, were we to ban all such movements, what about gasoline trucks and chlorine for our water systems? Would the Hon. Member have us put a moratorium on all of those until such time as the regulations come into effect on July 1 ? Is that what he is suggesting? His question tended to imply that. We move some 200 million tonnes of chemicals annually in this country. We cannot simply interrupt that because of the impact it would have on society in general.
The Government has indicated that it is taking measured responses to this accident. An investigation is being conducted jointly by Transport Canada and appropriate provincial Government staff into the circumstances of the leakage, and this can be done now that the emergency response actions are concluded or nearly concluded.
On the basis of that investigation, appropriate, specific and deliberate considered actions will be taken to reduce the probability of such an accident in the future. I trust the Hon. Member will accept this as a partial response, and accept as well the Minister's concern and, I am sure the concern of all those involved.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD-PRICE OF WINTER WHEAT
John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my comments on the Adjournment Debate tonight to the Canadian Wheat Board. My comments follow a question I asked earlier regarding winter wheat production, particularly the pricing pool in which winter wheat presently operates along with spring wheat.
By way of background, in my home Province of Saskatchewan winter wheat has enjoyed a particular popularity of late. As recently as 1983 there were 150,000 acres seeded to winter wheat. The next year, 1984, that figure had more than doubled to 350,000 acres seeded to winter wheat. By the time the 1985 winter wheat harvest is off, within the next two months, it

April 16, 1985
Adjournment Debate
should have exceeded about one million acres for this crop year.
Many farmers who in the past five or 10 years have begun growing winter wheat have the concern that, due to the unique nature of their wheat and its growing popularity, it should be put in its own separate pricing pool within the Canadian Wheat Board pricing system. They request this on the basis of their belief that in presently sharing the system with spring wheat they are subsidizing the price of spring wheat due to the export position of winter wheat. One young farmer has written to me indicating that he feels as a winter wheat producer that he is subsidizing spring wheat producers to the extent of $ 1 per bushel. I know that the Canadian Wheat Board has stated on many occasions that, with the varieties of grain it is marketing and selling abroad, it does not like to have in one pricing pool the cross-subsidization of one kind of grain with another.
Winter wheat is being sold and has been sold in the past few years primarily to the eastern area of our world, including China and India. The relatively good proximity of western Canada to the Port of Vancouver and the ease with which we can move winter wheat to the eastern countries that have expressed an interest in it further backs up the concern of farmers that by selling their product in the same pricing pool as spring wheat they may not in fact be getting the best independent price for their product.
To look further at the effect winter wheat has had on the growing patterns of Saskatchewan farmers, we should consider the increase of late in bushels of winter wheat grown. In 1984, in the Province of Saskatchewan alone, farmers produced nine million bushels of winter wheat. With many more farmers entertaining the thought of beginning to grow winter wheat, and with the farmers who are now doing so, it is my thought as their Member of Parliament that the Canadian Wheat Board ought first of all to address the question of whether or not winter wheat should be put in its own pricing pool and, second, do this with an eye to the present market and the present timing.
Winter wheat by its very nature is seeded in the fall and harvested in the spring. The winter wheat harvest will be occurring in Saskatchewan within the next couple of months, and producers who have this concern are interested in seeing if the Canadian Wheat Board will give some consideration to this matter, if it will consider the implementation of any program, keeping in mind that the harvest will soon be off and the producers will then be looking to sell their product through the Canadian Wheat Board. It is a good time to ask the Canadian Wheat Board to consider this matter expeditiously. If action is to be taken, it should be done soon.
I would like to conclude my remarks in further support of the many farmers in my constituency who have been growing winter wheat over the past winter. They have only started in the past two or three years to begin actively growing winter wheat. Generally, winter cereals have been one reason for example, within the European Economic Community, why the
British farmer has had an incredible turnaround during the past ten years. Britain was a very heavy importer of Canadian grain. It is now a world exporter of grain. Through winter cereals, such as winter wheat, the British farmers found that they can have a good yield wheat if winter conditions are favourable for growing. I would ask the Canadian Wheat Board to give this matter further consideration.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for The Batt-lefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley) has raised a very interesting question. Indeed it is true that the acreage planted with winter wheat in Alberta and Saskatchewan has increased substantially in recent years. In 1981, 300,00 acres were planted and we already have 1,750,000 acres in 1985, which is quite considerable. Even in Alberta, as well as in Saskatchewan, the acreage planted has increased quite substantially.
The problem may not lie strictly at this level as it is only for the past eleven years that red winter wheat exports have never exceeded the high of 269,000 which had been reached in 1981-82. The following year, exports fell to 129,000 tons, but they again increased to 258,000 tons in 1983-84.
In fact, last year, these exports accounted for only 1.4 per cent of total Canadian wheat exports. In 1983-84, all red winter wheat exports were shipped to two markets, India and China. The previous year, all our exports went to China, while, in the years before that, they went to a greater number of markets. However, in the six or seven years previous, 60 per cent of the winter wheat had always been exported through CIDA, which purchased the wheat and shipped it to the various countries receiving Canadian food assistance.
Mr. Speaker-

This export profile will be cause for concern in considering a separate pool for red winter wheat. The dependence on a few markets for exports of red winter wheat could present a risk that a separate pool may be more exposed to the requirements of a few countries. Especially important to bear in mind would be the risk that with the larger production of red winter wheat which can be expected in 1985, finding markets for these larger quantities may be more difficult than finding markets for the smaller quantities of past years, particularly as they would be marketed mainly in competition with U.S. red winter, which is their major class of wheat. In view of such uncertainties, the producers of winter wheat may welcome the benefits of pooling all wheat other than Durum in a single pool until such time as the experience with larger quantities of winter wheat is adequate to judge whether it would be advantageous to have a separate pool.

April 16, 1985

[ Translation)
I can assure my hon. colleague that the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) is well aware of this situation and, as he has already stated in this House, he is getting ready to refer the matter to the Wheat Board. As soon as consultations are completed, the forecasts will be made known.
Adjournment Debate


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.29 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 17, 1985