1986-05-28

Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, the Commission on War Crimes has asked the Government for more time to complete its investigative work. Five months ago the Commission referred to its investigative task as a colossal one. It said its success depends on the time and resources allocated to it.
However, the Commission has yet to arrange to travel abroad to gather evidence, be it to the Soviet Union or to any other country where relevant evidence exists.
The guiding consideration may be found in the Commission's decision concerning foreign evidence, where it said that the quality of the Commission's work and the soundness of its conclusions should not be threatened by severe, if not unrealistic time constraints.
What is at stake now is no less than the integrity of the whole effort to bring suspected Nazi war criminals to justice with all deliberate speed. I trust that the Government will extend the Commission's mandate so that justice may be done and the Commission may be able to complete its colossal enterprise.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION CORPORATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, Saskatchewan people were encouraged in high expectations by years of New Democrat Government. Now, Mona Dawson of Rollo, Saskatchewan, has waited since last year to have her indoor plumbing installed in her house for the first time but she is prevented by the delays of the Minister responsible for CMHC.
She applied for a RRAP grant from CMHC in 1985 but there was no more money after the Minister had cut the budget. She applied in 1986 and is still waiting.
It will take two months to get a contractor, two more months for him to do the job, and if she does not get her grant this week the plumbing cannot be installed before freeze-up.
This morning she phoned CMHC, Saskatchewan Housing Corporation, and her Member of Parliament, but none had any word of the funding which the Minister claimed yesterday was now available for RRAP.
Will the Minister permit Mona Dawson to get her grant this week and have indoor plumbing before winter, or must she wait until 1987?
[DOT] * *


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, today is the sixty-eighth anniversary of the independence of Armenia. Just three years after the genocide in 1915, the surviving Armenians defeated the Turkish army and set up an independent state on May 28, 1918. In 1920 the Treaty of Sevres, signed by Turkey and the Allies, enlarged the independent Armenia to include most of its historical territory. However, the Treaty was never ratified. Armenia was independent until December 2, 1920, when Turkey and the Soviet Union invaded and crushed the infant Republic and shattered the dream of the Armenians to be a freedom loving democracy.
On February 18, 1921, the Armenians revolted against their Communist oppressors. They were successful for 90 days and then their hopes were again crushed.
Today members of the executive of the Armenian National Committee of Canada, including the president, Mr. Khatchig Hagopian, are in Ottawa to mark this important day. I join with my friends in the Armenian community in recognizing Independence Day-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

May 28, 1986


HOUSING
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: For many weeks, Mr. Speaker, the municipalities of Abitibi had been waiting for a signature and, last May 13, the Quebec-Canada social housing general agreement was finally signed.
This agreement is the outcome of a wide-ranging policy review process and of discussions between the two Governments. Some $254 million a year are to be spent under this three-year agreement.
The new agreement is the mechanism which will make it possible to gear social housing assistance programs to poorer people, particularly those who spend more than 30 per cent of their income on housing.
In addition the two Governments are committed to fund exchanges aimed at launching a house renovation assistance program for which all Quebecers will be eligible as of July 1, 1986. Both Governments will share equally the $70 million estimated cost of this program.
Besides being an effective means to ease the allocation of housing units to the most destitute individuals or families in Quebec, the agreement attests to the determination of the two Governments to sign a lasting housing assistance program.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds. The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi).


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: When the Conservatives successfully ran for office, Mr. Speaker, they sold one or two trendy ideas to the people by claiming they had solutions to all problems experienced in this country.
Canadians were under the impression that the Conservatives had been in Opposition long enough to have time to prepare themselves, that they had devised novel solutions, that they had sought and found new avenues.
No, Sir, when the Conservatives took over in Ottawa they had no ideas, no visions, not even dreams to fulfil.
The Liberal Party has always been a strong advocate of social justice, equal opportunities, and progress. This is why Canadians will turf out the Conservatives at the next election and most certainly re-elect the Liberal Party.


PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, once a nation's moral fibre begins to decline so does that nation's character. The upcoming legislation on pornography is a test of our resolve. The control of pornography, as recommended by the Fraser report, cannot be allowed to be implemented. The proposed three-tier system of classification for pornographic material will only serve to entrench false images and feelings about men and women and sexuality.
There is strong evidence that pornography teaches sexual deviation, abnormal behaviour, and promotes violence towards women and children. Pornography is nothing more than vicious anti-women propaganda, whose sole purpose is to degrade by making women nothing more than objects. I believe that as legislators we must ensure that the forthcoming regulations regarding pornography are given the power to protect all Canadians from this type of exploitation.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I come from a riding in which many thousands of CN pensioners live. On their behalf, and on behalf of CN pensioners right across the country, I would like to ask the Government to get on with the business of responding to the recommendations of the Subcommittee on Transport regarding CN pensions. I ask the Government to act very soon to correct the injustices which have plagued CN pensioners for years. This has been on the table for a long time.
The Government has recommendations before it. I hope very soon it will get about the business, in co-operation with the CNR, of taking all necessary steps to ensure that CN pensioners finally receive a decent pension, particularly those who retired some time ago.


THE CENSUS
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, June 3 will be Census Day for all Canadians. The census is the most comprehensive source of specific information on Canadians. It provides a detailed picture of our society and a wealth of
May 28, 1986

information for all communities in this country. This information is used by businesses and community groups is making decisions that affect us all.
Once completed, the census questionnaire is strictly confidential. The information it provides will be used to create various statistics on the entire country. Once collected, these data are indispensable for all Canadians. So count yourself in on June 3, 1986!


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Andre Plourde (Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup):: Mr. Speaker, "the economic recovery observed in Canada and Quebec was particularly evident in Kamouraska in 1985, when there was a 29.5 per cent increase in the value of goods shipped by our 68 manufacturing companies".
Mr. Speaker, I was quoting the beginning of a speech by the president of Kodecam at that company's annual general meeting.
I am proud of the fact that assistance provided by our Government has helped the Kamouraska region take advantage of the economic recovery announced in November 1984. In his speech, Mr. Michel Paquet mentioned the fact that six new businesses had been created. The number of industrial jobs had increased by 7.3 per cent, for a total of 2,331 jobs spread over eight industrial sectors.
Mr. Speaker, our Government was right to support the dynamic and innovative business leaders in my riding. I want to thank the retiring president, Mr. Paquet, and his team for the tremendous work they have accomplished, and I wish to extend my best wishes to the new president, Bertrand Soucy, for a successful term.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I feel an obligation to rise for a second time to request that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) ask the Conservative Member of Parliament for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Suluk) to apologize for his March 3 statement of "mafia mafioso" directed at the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi). The latter is a distinguished Canadian of Italian ancestry, and neither he nor any other Canadian deserves to be addressed in such a derogatory manner.
On March 4 I asked, without success, for an apology. Moreover, the Prime Minister has since been petitioned by organizations within the Canadian-Italian community, again without success, to seek an apology.
The community does not tolerate such a degrading incident, and neither should this House. Therefore I call upon the Prime Minister to obtain an immediate and appropriate apology from his caucus member. Nothing less would be acceptable. Failure to respond is paramount to condoning this offensive characterization.


DISASTERS
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are frustrated and angered by the lack of information being released by the Soviet Union following the disaster at Chernobyl. What information exists indicates that 19 people are dead, 300 are being treated for radiation sickness, and up to 1,000 may die of cancer. This report comes weeks after the event.
On the day of the disaster the Soviets denied that the accident had occurred. For three days following the initial explosion there was no information. A callous policy of misrepresentation and cover-up has been put in place.
We have seen this pattern of state-controlled misinformation in the past. Is this not a repeat of the 1933 Ukrainian famine cover-up? The apparent openness of the Soviet Government in the past several days is nothing more than a public relations exercise. Given the past record of this secretive regime, we are left to fear the worst.
I urge the Canadian Government to use every resource at its disposal to pressure the Soviet Government to release factual information regarding this disastrous event.


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, the Government is to be commended for its consideration of a moratorium on loan repayments by African countries. These countries are desperately anxious to rebuild after years of famine. They need relief from the repayment of loans to western aid agencies in order to devote scarce resources to agricultural development.
A loan moratorium is a wise Canadian response. It is also a just one. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
May 28, 1986
Oral Questions
Clark) reminded me just last week, some 80 per cent of the goods and services provided within CIDA's bilateral projects must be purchased in Canada.
Aid dollars which Canada has given to African countries have already created jobs in Canada and generated income for Canadians. The Government has already received tax revenues resulting from this aid-based economic activity.
I support the Government's moratorium proposal. I also encourage the Government to redouble Canadian efforts to achieve the aid target of 1 per cent of GNP.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Last Friday he strongly condemned the action taken by the U.S. to impose a tariff on the shingle and shake industry and said that the Government would seek a reversal of that particular initiative. Why has the Government now changed its position? Why is the Government now seeking only compensation, which at best would simply provide for reductions in tariff barriers in another industry? Why are we conceding the loss of those 4,000 jobs rather than continuing the fight to have that position reversed?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we are doing no such thing. The Hon. Member knows full well that the statement he has just made is at variance not only with the facts but with all of the matters that have been raised in the House. We are following a course designed to be helpful to the industry and to retain those jobs. In fact, we have just concluded a successful meeting with the unions and representatives of the industry from British Columbia and I think they are in general agreement with the policy adopted by the Government of Canada.


CANADIAN REQUEST FOR COMPENSATION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, there has now been another change of position and I think it is important-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: No, it is important that we clarify this. Is it not true that yesterday Ambassador Gotlieb made a formal request to the U.S. Government for compensation and that compensation would only have the effect of providing some change or reduction in tariff barriers on other products and would have nothing to do with actually providing for the
protection of jobs in the shingle and shake industry? Would the Prime Minister please clarify what it is that they are doing?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is widely known that the only people who either have no position on an issue, or two positions on an issue, are members of the Liberal Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The position of the Liberal Party as expressed by the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount on Friday was altered by the Leader of the Liberal Party on Monday, and that has now been changed again by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.
We are following a course of action which I think meets with approval of all the people affected by this decision and is designed to protect those jobs and strengthen that industry in British Columbia. It involves action on a number of fronts and flanks, and we are taking all of those actions consistent with our responsibilities to the people of British Columbia in those industries.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, compensation is not the answer that will help the workers in that industry. If there are other courses of action, would the Prime Minister please elaborate on what they are? In particular, could he tell us what will be on the negotiating agenda this week when Ambassador Murphy will talk with Canadian officials about the shake and shingle industry? Will we simply be asking for compensation or will we be asking Ambassador Murphy for a reversal of the decision to impose tariffs?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, speaking of reversal, my hon. friend has just highlighted a very profound one. On Friday the official representative of the Liberal Party asked that the bilateral talks be scuttled, and now the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry is wondering what is on the table at the talks.
We are using the talks as a comprehensive vehicle to rid both countries of these irritants and the problems that are being caused or could be caused. This is why we declined to accept the recommendation of the Liberal Party last Friday as not being in the national interest at all, and least of all in the interest of the people of British Columbia. The Premier of British Columbia pointed that out with a great deal of emphasis. We are following a course and taking a number of actions designed to be helpful to the industry, the workers in the industry, and the process of a comprehensive trade agreement which we believe will be helpful to Canadians in providing jobs and greater riches for Canada.
May 28, 1986


TOKYO SUMMIT INQUIRY
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. On April 29, a full eight days before the Premier of British Columbia wrote the Prime Minister about his concerns about cedar shakes and shingles, Mr. Mike Apsey, the Executive Director of the Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia, wrote the Minister for International Trade asking that the, at that time, potential 35 per cent tariff issue be raised by the Prime Minister with the President of the United States during the course of the Tokyo Summit. I would ask the Prime Minister whether or not the Minister for International Trade brought to your attention the contents of Mr. Apsey's letter and whether or not you raised this issue with the President during the course of your meetings with him at the Tokyo Summit.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the potential for action in this regard by any country always exists. Everyone in the House, I think, recognizes the enormous pressures from protectionist sources that are on the President of the United States. This is why we included the Quebec arrangement. This is why we had the undertakings in Washington. This is why, on behalf of the Parliament of Canada, I raised the issue of more liberalized and less inhibited trade at the Tokyo Summit. That involved undertakings by the administration, a reference to which my hon. friend will find in the Quebec declaration. Anything at variance with that, we believe, was unacceptable and unexpected. This is why we have consistently defended the notion of more liberalized trade, ridding Canada of these problems and of the relationship of the threat of protectionist measures, which we believe will debilitate relations between the two countries.


Mr. Speaker:: A supplementary question through the Chair, please.


LETTER FROM COUNCIL OF FOREST INDUSTRIES OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether or not the Minister for International Trade brought to his attention the letter from Mr. Apsey, written eight days before the Premier's letter on the very same issue. If so, did he specifically raise the matter of a potential 35 per cent tariff on cedar shakes and shingles with President Reagan in Tokyo, as requested by the Executive Director of the Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am in constant touch with the Minister for International Trade. He raises concerns not only about British Columbia products but about Newfoundland fish products, which were brought to my attention and to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. We raise them
Oral Questions
constantly with the President of the United States, with the Secretary of State, and with the Secretary of the Treasury. These are raised on an ongoing basis.


POSITION OF COMPANIES AND UNIONS ON COMPENSATION ISSUE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I am concerned about a possible misleading of the House, and I hope the Prime Minister will be clear on it. Just 15 minutes ago I met with the representatives of the four companies and of the trade unions with whom he met. They told me that they flatly rejected the Government's approach on compensation. All four representatives on the business side and all four trade union representatives said that they rejected the Government's attempt to get compensation. The Prime Minister has just told the House the opposite, saying that both sides supported the Government. Is he saying that they misled me, or is he misleading the House?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I directed my question to the Prime Minister.


Pat Carney: -I should like to respond to that question because I attended the meeting to which he referred, in the company of the Prime Minister for part of the time and in the company of the Secretary of State for External Affairs before he left for Halifax.


Mr. Gauthier:: It has nothing to do with energy. Come on!


Pat Carney: I should like to point out that the statement he has made is completely at variance with the views expressed at our meeting.


PROCEEDINGS AT MEETING WITH BUSINESS AND UNION REPRESENTATIVES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, and I hope he deals with it. The Minister has now said that what the representatives of the business community and of the trade unions told me was completely at variance with what she said they told the Government. Is the Prime Minister aware that the representatives of the business community, four leading competitive companies, and the four representatives of the IWA, flatly reject the Government's attempt to get compensation and that instead they want their jobs back? Does the Prime Minister know that?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, he does not have to yell; he does not have to yell.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 28, 1986
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Of course Canadians quite properly want their jobs back and Canadians want jobs. This is why they so strongly support this Government which has created 630,000 new jobs.


Carlo Rossi: You must be joking.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: The usual baloney.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I was in the meeting, and my hon. friend asked me a question. I attended part of the meeting. All I can do is tell my hon. friend what took place. Statements of appreciation and support for the action of the Government of Canada were made and I believe were recorded by the media. This is not to suggest that the unions or the business people endorse everything the Government does in every circumstance.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Oh, oh, oh, the Member says. I said no, no, no to any suggestions to the contrary. Why is there such surprise? I have nothing at variance with the facts that took place while I was there-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think the surprise-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister gets away with this too often in the House. Unless the Prime Minister is prepared to withdraw the comments he made earlier, I am suggesting that he is misleading the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it the Hon. Member for Oshawa intends an implication to be taken from that statement. I must ask him, therefore, to withdraw it.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister will he-


An Hon. Member:: Withdraw.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member, I think, has heard me. I think he intends, at least the Chair, to take an implication from what he has just said. I must, therefore, ask him to withdraw it. If he would please do that then I will hear his question.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely no intention of withdrawing anything I have just said.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Oshawa knows that when questions of fact are involved-perhaps the Hon. Member for Oshawa could listen to this-there is not an issue. I took it that the Hon. Member was implying that the Prime Minister was deliberately misleading the House. That is the intention he intended to leave. If he says to me that is not what he intended, I will accept that. But if that is what he intended, he must withdraw it.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I sought clarification from the Prime Minister. I gave him the opportunity to clarify remarks that were totally at variance with the truth. Therefore, I have no intention of withdrawing anything I have said this afternoon.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please. I have indicated the Chair's dilemma with the language that was used. I have asked the Hon. Member to help the Chair and indicate what he meant. He is leaving with the Chair the impression that he meant the Chair to understand what the Chair understood. I, therefore, have no choice but to name Mr. Broadbent for failure to respond to a request of order from the Chair and ask him to withdraw. I have no choice in the circumstances.
The Hon. Member for Windsor West.
[Editor's Note: And Mr. Broadbent having withdrawn.]


UNION'S POSITION
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I understand that Jack Munro, president of the union representing the workers in the shake and shingle industry, insists that he and his union representatives did not tell the Prime Minister and the Ministers he met with that they supported the Government's position that there should be compensation rather than protecting and saving the jobs of the 4,000 workers. Why does the Prime Minister insist on his perfectly untenable position that the unions agree with the Government's position on this matter?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I explained to the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party that while I was at the meeting, I attended at the beginning of it, and it went on, that there was support expressed for what the Government had done. I indicated that I had not put forward the view that the unions or the business agreed with every action that the Government had taken or contemplated-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: He used the word essential.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -but that we were moving forward on all fronts to be helpful to British Columbia.
May 28, 1986


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister this question? Isn't it correct that what the Prime Minister is saying to the country and, in particular, to the 4,000 workers is that as far as he is concerned their jobs are gone and that compensation is good enough for this Government, instead of protecting the jobs in the shake and shingle industry? That is what he is saying to the country.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am saying the opposite. I am saying that the Liberal Party hopes those jobs are gone-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nunziata:: Oh, come on.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is what you are hoping for.


Some Hon. Members:: Come off it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is all the Liberal Party is hoping for. The Liberal Party is hoping to trade on the hardship of other people.


Brian Vincent Tobin: You wouldn't know the truth if it jumped up and bit you on the nose.


Martin Brian Mulroney: We are taking a mature, responsible position designed to save those jobs in British Columbia-


Brian Vincent Tobin: The truth is a foreign concept to you.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -and to strengthen access to those markets.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John V. Nunziata: You're an absolute fraud.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He sure is.


Mr. Nystrom:: Pinocchio.


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


UNION POSITION
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I want him to address it very directly and very carefully. I just met with representatives of the IWA and the shake and shingle industry as well. They made it very clear to us at the beginning of the meeting that they reject, wholly and totally, the Government's proposal in relation to compensation. Our Leader has been ejected over this.
Would the Prime Minister make this clear. Is he telling the people of Canada in the shake and shingle industry that when they met with him they said that they wholly and totally supported the Government's proposal on compensation?
Oral Questions


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: He never said that.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will tell my hon. friend the exact same thing I told his Leader. I made no such comment. I indicated that the meeting began in a very co-operative and supportive manner. The unions and the industry indicated support for what the Government of Canada had done. At no time did I suggest that this implied support for every action that the Government of Canada had taken or would contemplate. That is what I told the Hon. Leader of the NDP and that is what I repeat to this Member.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the only proposal that the Government has forward right now is on compensation. Would the Prime Minister get up and tell the shake and shingle industry and the IWA what part of the Government's position they support? He has not had the guts to phone President Reagan and tell him to get that off the table.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Right on.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I know that this will offend the NDP, but it was a constructive meeting at which people got along.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Representatives of labour, management, and Government sat down in a mature and thoughtful manner and tried to work out a solution to the problems of British Columbia. No one harangued anyone else, no one cast aspersions, and no one cast blame on people. We were looking for a solution. It was a very co-operative effort undertaken by all involved.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, let me try my luck at getting the truth this afternoon. My question is directed to the Prime Minister and is on the same issue. What has changed since last Friday that the Government is now prepared to accept the loss of this industry and 4,000 jobs when, only a few days ago, the Government was demanding a complete reversal? Why the flip-flop?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, nothing has changed our mind, nothing that precludes action by any reasonable Government on a number of fronts in a matter this complicated. This is a very serious matter in which people's jobs and futures are involved. Comprehensive negotiations are under way. Retaliatory pressure and protectionist measures exist in the United States. It is not an easy matter to resolve. However, we are working

May 28, 1986
Oral Questions
with the unions, management, and the Governments involved to bring about a solution. There has been no change in position. We are opening up new possibilities on different fronts trying to be helpful to those involved.


CONSEQUENCES OF REQUEST FOR COMPENSATION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Does the Prime Minister not realize today that by asking for compensation he is just accepting the fact that this industry has been utterly destroyed? Does he not realize this?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. This step is entirely appropriate in the circumstances, and we are trying a number of alternatives on behalf of the people affected by the decision. It seems to me it is entirely normal to do so, and one option does not necessarily preclude others being tried as well. We are working in any number of ways to help the industry and get them interested in the industry.


EFFECT ON INDUSTRY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a letter which was sent by Ambassador Niles to various newspapers in the country. With respect to the shake and shingle decision he says:
This should not constitute a mortal blow to the Canadian industry, and should not endanger many of the roughly 4,000 jobs in the Canadian industry.
Does the Prime Minister agree with that assessment by the Ambassador from the United States which was directly contradicted by representatives of the industry only half an hour ago?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member is aware, there was a very fruitful meeting this morning between the industry and representatives of the Government, including the Prime Minister. At that meeting a number of options were discussed. Certainly the predicament of those people working in the industry was very much a concern of Government representatives at the meeting. These matters will be discussed further to develop-


David Berger: That wasn't the question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -a fuller assessment of the direct impact on the people who work in that industry. At such time in the future as may be appropriate further action may be taken.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the Government has gone a long way to avoid answering questions, but that is the most excessive yet.


UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR'S LETTER
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Does he also agree with the statement of Mr. Niles in this letter that U.S. and Canadian government officials have discussed this case in Ottawa and Washington since the filing of the U.S. industry's petition?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it has been indicated previously that there are differences of opinion as to what the impact of this decision will be on the workers in that industry.


Mr. Orlikow:: Why don't you answer the question?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We are reviewing the matter.


Steven W. Langdon: Answer the question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If the Hon. Member is not going to listen to the answer he is not going to learn anything from it.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: You're not answering the question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We are assessing the impact and working with representatives of management and the workers in the industry, after which we will be able to make an appropriate assessment.


TELEX SENT BY BRITISH COLUMBIA PREMIER
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister on the same issue. On May 7 the Premier of British Columbia wrote to the Prime Minister asking him to phone the President of the United States. Yesterday in the House the Prime Minister admitted that he did not follow that advice. I have in my hand a copy of a telex sent by the same Premier on May 20.
If you did not want to pay attention to the letter of May 7, why did you not at least pay attention to the telex sent by the Premier on May 20 in an attempt to avoid the impasse which we are presently facing?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that question has been answered three or four times in the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: The Member will put his supplementary question through the Chair.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER TELEPHONE UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the answer has not been given. Why did the Prime Minister not contact the President as requested in the letter of May 7, the telex of May 20, and other representations which he received? Did he
May 28, 1986

or did he not have the integrity and the courage to pick up the hot line?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that kind of question ought not to be dignified with any answer. However, I will tell my hon. friend that I have already responded to that question put in proper perspective by other Members of the House on earlier occasions.


PRICE OF GASOLINE
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and is about gasoline prices. Could the Minister tell the House why, when the price of crude oil goes dramatically down, it takes 60 to 90 days for the consumer to feel it at the pump, but when it goes up slightly the consumer gets hosed at the pump? Could the Minister tell us why that happens?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to understand the source of the Member's question. As he well knows, gasoline prices have fallen across the country by an average of 10 cents a litre. They dropped another 2 or 3 cents a litre in Montreal. I understand that they have gone up in other areas, which shows that the market is dictating the cost of gasoline.


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my source is Bob Runciman, the Tory critic in the Ontario Legislature. Does the Minister agree with Mr. Runciman who yesterday criticized the Ontario Liberal Energy Minister for being conned by the oil companies and called for a full public inquiry into the price of gasoline at the pump in Canada?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative MPP involved was, I am informed, simply reading back to the Liberal Government the position they had taken in a campaign.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment who is also responsible for Parks Canada. One local business, a boat rental agency, cannot yet open in Riding Mountain due to its inability to get liability insurance. In light of that, can the
Oral Questions
Minister explain what avenues his Department will pursue to ensure that the much desired private sector companies will be able to offer service to anyone who visits a national park this summer?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has put his finger on a very serious problem, both for the private sector interests which are providing the relevant services, and for the public for whom the services are extended. I am working hand-in-glove with my colleague, the Hon. Minister of Justice, on four or five options that we are looking at on an urgent basis. I must say our sense of urgency is heightened by the pressure the Hon. Member is putting on all concerned.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.

The Minister of Transportation for the Province of New Brunswick recently said in the New Brunswick Legislature that the federal Minister of Transport had given him assurances last winter that the CN shops in Moncton were not in danger of being closed in the foreseeable future. Is that statement fact or fiction? Did the Minister give those assurances to the provincial Minister?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is clearly aware that this is an issue that CN has been wrestling with for quite some time as part of a survey of its maintenance shops right across the country. There will have to be some adjustment and rationalization and consolidation. When a decision is finally agreed to and taken to the board and management of CN, I will be in a position to respond in a more appropriate fashion.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister please answer my question. Did he give assurances to the provincial Minister of Transportation that the jobs in Moncton would be protected?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have said on a number of occasions that there would not be, I would hope, any massive lay-offs. What we are trying to do is work towards the maintenance of the largest number of employees possible under any adjustment or rationalization.

May 28, 1986
Oral Questions VISIBLE MINORITIES


INTERNMENT OF JAPANESE CANADIANS DURING WORLD WAR II-REQUEST FOR RESUMPTION OF NEGOTIATIONS
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. The President of the National Association of Japanese-Canadians indicated yesterday that the Association has not achieved agreement with the Government on any item in a redress package, not on matters of principle any more than on matters of financial compensation. I thank the Minister for returning. Will he resume negotiations with the NAJC in order to arrive at agreement on the whole package on which the Association has made recommendations to the Government calling for action, and ensure that the redress package is acceptable to the community?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, discussions with the NAJC, as well as other Japanese-Canadian organizations, have been going on for quite some time. It is only less than a week ago that the NAJC made a proposal to us. This was the first of its kind. That proposal has now been put forward for consideration by Cabinet along with other proposals, and is being considered.


REQUEST THAT NEGOTIATOR BE APPOINTED
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will direct this question to the Prime Minister. The Minister has failed so completely to bring this matter to a satisfactory resolution before bringing it to Cabinet that I call upon the Prime Minister, whose personal honour is on the line here because of statements he made in June, 1984, to appoint a representative who will negotiate this kind of package. Will the Prime Minister appoint a representative to ensure that a redress package is negotiated?


Mr. Forrestall:: You have the best one in the world.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify again for the Hon. Member that discussions have been ongoing throughout the course of the last year and a half with all interested groups, including the National Association of Japanese Canadians. We have attempted in every way, shape and form to open the doors to discussion, suggestions, and recommendations. Those suggestions have now come forward. We have put them on the cabinet table for consideration. I can assure all Hon. Members that this Government is going to keep its commitment and come forward with a fair, equitable, and honourable resolution to the problem.


TRANSPORTATION AND HANDLING SERVICES IN PEACE RIVER RIDING
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. As he is aware, I have been working for several years now to try to get some improvement of grain handling services in Valleyview and areas like that in my riding. When will we have some sort of program in place to help these people, and can we give them assurances that there will be something in place to handle this fall's crops?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has been an ardent supporter of innovations to improve the transportation system in his particular part of the country. We have undertaken a number of pilot projects in all three Prairie provinces to try to address this problem, particularly in the frontier areas. Yes, I can tell the Hon. Member that we are still working on a pilot project in co-operation with the Government of Alberta, and we hope to be in a position to do something in the very near future.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. At the end of December the then Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion announced an agreement with the Province of Nova Scotia for the second phase of the modernization of Sydney Steel Corporation. This agreement was signed at the end of February, yet the federal Government refuses to make any money available under this agreement. Has the agreement for the second phase of the modernization of Sydney Steel Corporation received the full approval of Treasury Board?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to take the question as notice and communicate with my hon. colleague as soon as possible. I cannot give him a yes or no answer on that question. I will have to check.


TREASURY BOARD APPROVAL
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, this is a signed agreement and the President of the Treasury Board cannot tell us if it has approval from his Department. When is this agreement going to be approved by Treasury Board? It was signed in February, and people are counting on the money and the assistance it can bring.
May 28, 1986


Robert René de Cotret: will be very happy to give the Hon. Member all the information he wants on the case. I would just like to take notice and check exactly whether it is before the Treasury Board, if it has been presented to the Board, when it is going to be presented to the Board, and when action will be taken.

[ Translation]


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post.
Why did the Minister cancel a meeting previously arranged with a delegation from Montreal? Is he afraid of meeting people who are upset about being treated like second-class citizens as far as home mail delivery is concerned?
I would like an answer please.


Mr. Bill Domm (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister responsible I would be very pleased to take the question under consideration and bring it to the attention of the Minister on his return.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Under the circumstances I think the Hon. Member for Papineau.


Cyril Keeper: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker!


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows the practice is that, when we simply have a "take note" answer from a Parliamentary Secretary, we go to the next questioner.


Cyril Keeper: It was an inadequate response.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Cyril Keeper: I would like to put a supplementary question to the Parliamentary Secretary. If he was answering a question for the Minister I would like to put a supplementary question to him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Papineau.
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


COMPETITION
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Is the Minister now in a position to accept a suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition, and to confirm that the part of Bill C-91 that deals with mergers will come into effect immediately after royal assent is given? And could the Minister issue a press release to inform Canadian companies and businessmen accordingly?


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the Hon. Member for Papineau and the House that the Government intends that the merger provisions included in Sections 63 to 70 of Bill C-91 will take effect on the day of proclamation, right after the Bill is passed.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear this. Similarly, could the Parliamentary Secretary confirm to the House that Bill C-91 will take precedence over the Investment Canada Act in case of mergers that would involve foreign take-overs?


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the Hon. Member and the House that the provisions included within the Act, the Competition Act and the Canada Business Corporations Act, will take precedence over Investment Canada. That is clearly spelled out in the intent of the legislation as it pertains to both the Competition Act and the Canada Business Corporations Act.



THE CENSUS


Mr. Allan Pietz (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. Next Tuesday, June 3, is census day in Canada. As the Minister knows, the co-operation of every Canadian is important in gathering

May 28, 1986
Oral Questions
these valuable statistics. Given the Minister's limited advertising budget, what has he done to create an adequate public awareness which is so crucial to the success of the national census taking?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I must clarify that we do not have a limited budget; we have no advertising budget. This was a restraint that we accepted in undertaking the census this year. However, I am absolutely confident that the importance of the census has been brought to the attention of all Canadians by business, by the media, and by Members of Parliament. May I take this opportunity to express-


Some Hon. Members:: No. Sit down.


Carlo Rossi: Statements by Ministers.


Stewart Donald McInnes: -my appreciation to all groups-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the Michael Deaver dealings in Washington. I realize that this started before the Prime Minister began directing a new moral standard day by day here in Ottawa. However, will he assure the House that the Government will co-operate fully with the special prosecutor who is to be appointed to get at the facts in this case?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think that has already been said. I assume the appointment of a special prosecutor will ensure that the matter will be treated in a non-partisan manner.


REQUEST THAT EMBASSY OFFICIALS PROVIDE EVIDENCE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I take it from the Prime Minister's answer that he will co-operate with the special prosecutor. Will he give the assurance that that cooperation will include the appearance before that special prosecutor of any official in Canada's Embassy in Washington who may have evidence to give?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that is a hypothetical question, in much the same way it is hypothetical to ask whether the Member for Winnipeg- Fort Garry will want to appear, given his interest in the case down there.


INSURANCE
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-1,eonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. The CTV program As It Is in Montreal showed very clearly how the insurance business allows deals among unregulated management insurance companies, affiliated insurance companies, and general insurance companies. Such practice was described as a major cause of bankruptcy in the insurance industry. When will the Minister put a stop to these sweetheart deals among insurance companies and introduce the legislation which she promised in January, 1986?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I am sympahetic to the Hon. Member's question. He knows that I also regard this as an important issue. Our legislation is in the final stages of preparation and I should have it in the House before the end of June.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT INTRODUCE FIRE INSURANCE LEGISLATION BEFORE END OF JUNE
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, how many more people like Mr. Bernard Levesque from the town of Gaspe will have to lose their homes due to fire and then find out that their insurance company has gone bankrupt, before you intervene? That is what the situation has been like since January. Could you give the House the assurance that the legislation will be in the House by the end of June?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it very much if the Hon. Member would bring the specifics of this case to me. I would be very happy to look into what happened. I think it might have been something to do with his broker and I would be happy to see if there is anything we can do about it.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister sotto voce. It involves the situation of an Air Canada flight attendant being suspended and facing dismissal after 13 years of service, after a Tory delegate to the Conservative Convention wrote a "Dear Don" letter to the Minister of Transport. Will the Prime Minister tell us why Mr. Ian Hamilton of his office, when notified of this injustice last week, chose to tell the flight attendant that no action would be taken to defend this citizen's job or right to freedom of speech?
May 28, 1986


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can respond to that question. First, I checked into the allegations that were made by my hon. friend yesterday. I am advised that the employee in question is not suspended but is held out of service pending the investigation.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What is the difference?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Held out of service with pay, pending the investigation. Second, Air Canada has no policy that prohibits public contact employees from discussing politics-


Don Boudria: Why have the investigation?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -politics, religion or any other subject with customers. My understanding is that the investigation is to be completed on Thursday, May 29 and, pending the results of that investigation, any action with respect to suspension or disciplinary action will be taken into account.
I should also say that the Hon. Member charged yesterday that my correspondence group requested the suspension of this particular person.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I didn't say that.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I want to advise the House that I merely received the letter and sent it to Air Canada for a response.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If there is no policy against the activities of that flight attendant, what is the investigation about? I find it strange that the Minister of Transport answers questions about the behaviour of members of the Prime Minister's staff.


FORWARDING OF LETTERS TO CROWN CORPORATIONS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does he appreciate that Ministers of the Crown cannot be allowed simply to simply forward the whims in personal letters from Tory delegates to Crown corporations?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You do that every day.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In the name of fairness and his open Government, will he reverse the damage caused by this action of this Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: The Member will appreciate that this is a little long.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I told the Hon. Member yesterday and he knows that our office receives many letters, both complimentary and of a complaint nature, which we send on to Air Canada for a response to the person who inquires. There is nothing abnormal or irregular about that. If it is a New Democrat, a Liberal, or a Conservative, they are all treated the same.
Oral Questions


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the the Minister of Transport.
During a telephone conversation with a Globe and Mail reporter, Versatile Corporation President Saunders said that the only way he might be awarded a contract this spring was to accept the responsibility of rationalizing the Quebec shipyard industry.
Can the Minister explain why the Government would resort to such methods, and tell us whether putting such pressure on company presidents is common practice?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that my predecessor indicated to Mr. Saunders that he should engage in discussions with other representatives of the shipbuilding industry in the Province of Quebec with a view to rationalizing the shipbuilding industry in that province, as is occurring in the Province of Ontario under the aegis of Mr. Martin and Mr. Leitch, all of whom recognize the difficulties in the shipbuilding industry and the tremendous over-capacity not only in Canada but throughout the world. This is an attempt at an orderly rationalization of an industry in order that its future may be secured.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for being so frank. Can the Minister explain how he can reconcile Mr. Saunders' statement with his own and that of the Minister of State (Small Businesses) who told Sorel workers last week that the Government had not given a mandate to Mr. Saunders? How can these two answers be reconciled?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think what my colleague, the Minister of State for Small Businesses, said was that there was no mandate to shut down any shipbuilding entities in the Province of Quebec. I wish the Hon. Member would stop misleading-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's not what he said.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Maybe it is not deliberate but I wish the Hon. Member would stop that exercise because there is no point in spreading fear and apprehension amongst the workers

May 28, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. Attewe11
in the Province of Quebec, or in the Province of Ontario for that matter.


POINT OF ORDER
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, the type of language which is sometimes used in this House, I believe, brings from time to time disrespect to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), other Members of Cabinet and all of us as colleagues. It is disrespect certainly for Parliament which is the highest body in this land.
I distinctly heard the Hon. Member for York South- Weston (Mr. Nunziata) use the word "fraud" after the Prime Minister had replied to a question. I looked up the word "fraud" in the Oxford dictionary on the Clerk's table. It describes "fraud" as "deceitfulfulness, dishonest trick or stratagem, dishonest contrivance". I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to bring the full weight of your office to bear so that we elevate the conduct of this House to the proper-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Am I to understand the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell) to say he heard the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) accuse the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) or another Member of being a fraud?


Bill Attewell: I heard the Hon. Member for York South- Weston (Mr. Nunziata) call the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) a fraud.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it no one else is intervening on this point of order, in which case I will of course-the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans)?


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, my quick reading of Beauchesne's would lead me to believe that the use of that word has been ruled both parliamentary and unparliamentary, but most frequently to be parliamentary.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not hear the words put in exactly the way the Hon. Member is suggesting.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think the weight of precedents with respect to the rulings of previous Speakers regarding the word in question would be such that the Chair could easily find that the word is parliamentary. In any event, I suggest there has to be more than the allegation of the Hon. Member opposite to connect that word with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Although the Hon. Member
opposite may have his conclusions, I hope his colleagues do not agree with him in that regard.
Hon. Warren Ailmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: On the same point of order?


Mr. Ailmand:: Mr. Speaker, when you are considering the point of order just raised, I would like you to consider this; on the one hand an Hon. Member can be put out of the House for questioning the truth of another Hon. Member in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: Withdraw.


William Warren Allmand: On the other hand-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is dealing with this point of order, please.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I would like you to also consider that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) can stand up and say that the Liberal Party takes great joy in the loss of jobs in British Columbia and the rules will not allow us to do anything about it. Yet the Speaker can put people out of the House for much less than that. That is the kind of place this is becoming.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The fact that we are now carrying on like this indicates that the complaint about language generally is clearly true.
I did not hear the matter complained of. Of course, under the circumstances, I will reserve.
Let me say to the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Ailmand) that the Chair does not ever happily do what was done today. That is why the Chair goes to some length to try to explain the dilemma the Chair is in when the Chair has heard such a matter. The Chair tries to give the Hon. Member involved in such a thing time to withdraw, as the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East knows personally, with respect.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I have indicated I will reserve.


Philip Derek Lewis: Yes, I am sorry, in the by-play I did not catch that. I would just ask, since it has been pointed out that rulings have gone both ways, that the Chair take it in the context of the way it was in the House today and decide whether we are going to deal with this as a precedent or as a principle, and what kind of a House we want this to be.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
May 28, 1986


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) is rising on the business question and not on this point of order because he knows I cannot allow this to become a debate, with respect.


André Ouellet: It's a reflection of the quality of the answers we are getting.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, when you consider this particular point, I would appreciate you also considering whether it is parliamentary for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) to have said that an Hon. Member on this side misled the House and then went on to say "maybe it was not deliberate". It would seem to me that in order to use the word "misled" in the way which is acceptable, the person using it must make clear he does not suggest it was used deliberately, without equivocation.


Mr. Siddon:: That's what he did.


André Ouellet: He said "maybe".


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is in fact raising a different point of order about another Hon. Member's language. I listened very carefully to what the Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps all those involved, including Ministers and backbenchers, would please stop this. I listened very carefully, as I did earlier to the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). I had some difficulty in knowing what was being said in that situation which is why I intervened. I listened very carefully because I think the Chair tries to hear people as being in order. I think that is the Chair's intention. So I listened to what the Hon. Minister said and it seemed to me he very carefully tried to indicate that if an impression was left that he was accusing someone of something unparliamentary he wished it to be withdrawn. That is what the Chair took from the Minister's language at the time. However, that is the dilemma the Chair is always in when interpreting language, which is why the Chair rose earlier where it was not clear to ask that it be made clear.


Mr. Moe Mantha (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, in the Speaker's penalty box is one of our fine Canadians, the best referee-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member's point of order is completely out of order no matter what one thinks personally of the gentleman involved.
Point of Order-Mr. Forrestall BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


WEEKLY STATEMENT
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader and, in that capacity, the Acting House Leader, what business the Government intends to call for the remainder of the week.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I advise the House that tomorrow it is our intention to call Bill C-88, an Act to Authorize the Acquisition of Marine Atlantic Inc. Once the House has completed second reading debate on that Bill we will move to second reading of Bill C-111, an Act to Amend the Customs Tariff Act.
In the event that the debate is completed on those Bills during the day, we will discuss this from time to time with the other House Leaders and advise them as to what Bills we intend to call.

I would also like to announce that Friday will be the ninth allotted day of the current supply period.


Mr. Redway:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary when he is going to be calling Bill C-67 for report stage and third reading? Can we expect that this week?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we will be discussing this matter with the House Leaders and it will come up in due course.


POINT OF ORDER
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to another point of order because of the history and the nature of what went on in the Chamber this afternoon. May I join with those Hon. Members who share some concern-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows I am in some difficulty, since I thought he was on a different point of order, and I have indicated I am going to reserve on the earlier point of order raised.
I can hear the Hon. Member on a separate point of order but not on the same one we have discussed.


J. Michael Forrestall: Then permit me on a question of privilege, as someone who has sat here for some 21 years, to say I regret deeply what has happened in the Chamber this afternoon.


Jacques Guilbault: Come on. We will all stand up on this.

May 28, 1986
Point of Order


J. Michael Forrestall: I can only sympathize-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that that is what I think the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) calls a "point of view". It is not a point of order or a question of privilege.


J. Michael Forrestall: Why would you then allow somebody to denigrate this Chamber?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André Ouellet: Kick him out.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


André Ouellet: In 21 years he has not learned.


Mr. Speaker:: Please, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) as well.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the Government's response to four petitions, Nos. 331-431, 331-475, 331-476 and 331-508.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. In accordance with its order of reference dated Thursday, February 27, 1986, Your committee has considered votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 under Veterans Affairs for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987, and reports the same.



LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION-SEVENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the seventh report of the Standing Comittee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, requesting a brief extension of our order of reference regarding family processing of family class immigration.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS-TWELFTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the twelfth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), the committee requests a comprehensive government response to the recommendations.
The committee is concerned about the timeliness of the audit findings in the Auditor General's annual reports. Certain of these findings are out of date by the time they are referred to the committee. Therefore the Committee is recommending that the Auditor General Act be amended to permit the tabling of comprehensive audit reports on a completion date basis.
Second, in order to place greater emphasis on the accountability process added attention should be given to Public Accounts Committee Reports. The Public Accounts Committee is recommending an annual debate in this House.
Finally, in view of the committee's familiarity with and understanding of the Auditor General's work it is recommended that any matter relating to the office of the Auditor General, including the Estimates, should be referred to the Public Accounts Committee.



ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES-THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources, in both official languages.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES-FIFTH REPORT OF JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE

["Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that today, the day on which we will discuss a motion relevant to Government youth policies, I again have an opportunity to present two petitions. The first is from the Province of Quebec and the second is from Windsor. A total of 150 names are on these petitions. The petitions protest the cancellation of Katimavik, which cancellation is symbolic of the Government's youth policy."]
Mr. Charles Hamelin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifth report of the Standing Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Official Languages.

It is, of course, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by constituents of the riding of Papineau who express their disagreement with the
May 28, 1986

Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) who has eliminated projects for maintaining job planning programs at home. They urge the Minister to reconsider her cruel and inhuman decision which deprives hundreds of elderly people of an important service.


Mrs. Carole Jacques (Montreal-Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and pleasure to present to the House a petition signed by residents of the Riviere-des-Prairies ward in my riding who are victims of discrimination on the part of Canada Post. Riviere-des-Prairies residents urge the House and Canada Post to ban the use of green boxes in their riding, and they also ask for home mail delivery three days a week.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and pleasure to present a petition signed by a number of residents of Saint John, New Brunswick, and Halifax, who request that this House consider co-operatives as democratically-controlled and self-administered affordable housing. They humbly pray and call upon the House to reject any recommendation that would reduce government funding to continue with housing co-operatives. In the interest of stable community development, they request that the Government continue and expand the co-operative housing program.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that today, the day on which we will discuss a motion relevant to Government youth policies, I again have an opportunity to present two petitions. The first is from the Province of Quebec and the second is from Windsor. A total of 150 names are on these petitions. The petitions protest the cancellation of Katimavik, which cancellation is symbolic of the Government's youth policy.



ENERGY ADMINISTRATION ACT


Pat Carney: for leave to introduce Bill C-l 12, an Act to amend the Energy Administration Act and provide for certain matters in relation thereto.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Minister shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order Paper Questions


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, question No. 551 will be answered today.



HEAVY OIL UPGRADER PROJECT

Mr. Caccia: 1.	Did the Government contribute $63 million to the Husky heavy oil upgrader project in Lloydminster and, if so (a) what proportion was/is to be spent on environmental studies (b) what are the specific areas or topics that will be studied in relation to the (i) construction (ii) operation (iii) closing phases of the project?
2.	Was the project referred to the Environment Assessment Review Process for full public review and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1. The Government of Canada, Alberta and Saskatchewan have agreed to contribute $63 million in total to the Husky upgrader project; $36 million from Canada and $13.5 million from each of the two provinces.
(a)	Of the $50 million expended to date, $1.5 million has gone directly towards the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. Considerably more money has gone towards the engineering designs required to develop industrial process technologies which are relatively environmentally benign. In addition, approximately $0.5 million has been spent on optimizing waste water design specifications to bring them to the "state of the art" and approximately $1 million has been expended on deep well disposal test systems for waste products.
(b)	(i)-(iii) The Governments' contribution will assist Husky Oil in completing the pre-construction engineering phase and will produce definitive estimates of construction costs, ongoing operating expenses and conditions, and the probable useful life of the project. Based on these results, the governments and Husky Oil will be able to assess the desirability and need for future support to the project. As part of its final report, Husky Oil will provide a summary of the costs incurred before April, 1986, and to the end of this phase of work early next year.
2. The three Governments agreed to use the Saskatchewan Environmental Impact Assessment Process and to have equal representation on any review by all governments.
In November, 1984, Saskatchewan Environment issued guidelines for the development of the Upgrader Environmental Impact Statement which Husky Oil subsequently prepared. Following a thorough review and acceptance of the statement

May 28, 1986
Motions for Papers
by all the key parties, Saskatchewan extended environmental approval in principle to the project. This approval followed a public review period in Saskatchewan and is subject to Husky completing, in the near future, a detailed investigation of liquid waste disposal options (including both deep well injection, and treatment and discharge of wastes into the North Saskatchewan River).


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Howard Douglas McCurdy: That this House condemns the Government for its management of job-creation programs and in particular for diverting Challenge '86 funds for youth employment from non-profit service organizations to the private sector, thus not only eliminating valuable social services but at the same time limiting new job creation and career experience for youth.
He said: Mr. Speaker, just moments ago I tabled two petitions which protest the Government's cancellation of Katimavik, which cancellation led to considerable focus being placed upon the Government's youth policy, or lack thereof.
The motion we are debating today dramatizes in a way the narrowness of the perspective which the Government has brought to the issue of youth policy. As Hon. Members well know, when questions have arisen in the House with respect to youth policy the Government has repeatedly responded by reference to its employment and training programs. I certainly would not deny that employment programs and training programs are a significant and important part of the development of youth policy.
I would like to draw attention to the fact that youth policy does not simply entail Challenge '86 or the Canadian Jobs Strategy but, as has been dramatized by the New Democratic Party task force, the Senate committee task force and many, many others, the issues involving youth are manifold. We should at least address the fact that these must include the enhancement of participation and a vehicle by which young people can be heard and by which they can build their own mechanisms for addressing the policies affecting them and the entire country.
As well, it is perfectly clear that primary, secondary and post-secondary education is of dramatic importance not only to young people but to the entire country. When we address the issues of economic development and opportunities and the Government's own economic policies, we must be concerned about the fact that the Government has not brought to bear the kind of focus on education that it deserves in terms of the future of Canada, let alone the needs of youth.
I would be remiss if I did not point out that there was a great deal of confusion resulting from the debate on youth policy, not only about what it should entail but about where it is to be established. After the unfortunate discovery of the real motive behind the activities of the Government with respect to youth, the recruitment of youth to the Progressive Conservative Party, resulting in a great deal of criticism from youth over the rather compassionless, complacent and incompetent youth ministry, the Ministry was mysteriously transferred to the Department of Employment and Immigration. Again, this dramaticizes the rather narrow and restricted concept the Government has of youth policy.
Quite frankly, I think we must call attention to the fact that when in committee we elicited from the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) clarification of the Government's youth policy that was to be released by the end of the fiscal year, the end of the spring, the fall and maybe the winter, he said that he did not know. I think it is about time that youth received an answer, not only as to what youth policy will be but where it will be formulated, by whom it will be formulated and the directions it will take.
We rise today to talk specifically about the Canadian Jobs Strategy. It is really not quite a jobs strategy as such, but is a program designed to allow for training. I think that is the fittest description that can be applied to it. At the outset, I have to say that there are many components of the Canadian Jobs Strategy which we think are quite good. We think its concept is good. On a theoretical basis there is much to recommend it. The Job Entry Program and the Job Development Program are excellent concepts. We do have some doubt about the Innovations Program because we do not know what that means, and the Community Futures Program is another obscure concept. However, let us focus on the strategy's practical application.
May 28, 1986

Supply



[Stage Direction]
We have a considerable number of questions about the strategy's practical application. To say that we have a considerable number of questions is to pose the key question. It is very difficult to find out what is happening with the Canadian Jobs Strategy. The other day, we had occasion before the Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, to attempt to determine from the Assistant Deputy Minister the status of this program. We received a cloud of obfuscation, but among the things we did find out was that there was a freeze imposed during the 1985-86 fiscal year which, we are told, substantially paralysed the Department with respect to the processing and funding of grants, not only for those applications received last year but indeed those received this year. We were told that the funding freeze that has been imposed and at times even contested by various members of Government but confirmed all across the country has resulted in no funds being made available in the form of allocations to be used for successful programs to proceed. We were told that because there was no money to travel, there was no possible way to process any of these programs at least until the end of May. Even more seriously, there is a horrendous number of examples of urgently needed job training programs for which no money was made available.
At the committee meeting we were cited the example of British Columbia. We were informed that some $15.8 million had been returned to the Treasury Board while $260 million worth of grant applications were lying fallow. Of course, those grant applications represent a great many people including a significant number of young people who do not have jobs.
In order to further dramatize the effect of that kind of processing, one could refer to the situation in Windsor. The funding of a considerable number of applications received in the Windsor area in 1985 was delayed until this year. I am having difficulty finding the papers, Mr. Speaker. I hope you will bear with me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will take this opportunity to inform the House that I have received written notice from the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) that due to a prior commitment, he is unable to be present in the House on Thursday, May 29, 1986, to move his motion during the hour of private Members' business. Accordingly, I am directing the Table to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence. Since notice will thereby be removed, the hour for privte Members' business will be suspended and, pursuant to Standing Order 39(2), the House will continue with the business before it prior to that hour until the ordinary hour of adjournment.


ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 82-JOB CREATION PROGRAMS-DIVERSION OF CHALLENGE '86 FUNDS TO PRIVATE SECTOR
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McCurdy:
That this House condemns the Government for its management of job-creation programs and in particular for diverting Challenge '86 funds for youth employment from non-profit service organizations to the private sector, thus not only eliminating valuable social services but at the same time limiting new job creation and career experience for youth.
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That was very kind of you.
There are two offices in the Windsor area, and out of the eastern office we found that $318,000 worth of eventually approved allocations for 1985 were delayed until this year as a result of the freeze imposed last year. For this year only $205,000 was made available. Similarly, out of the central office, $446,000 in allocations for last year were delayed until this year while this year's applications will be funded only to the extent of $260,000.
With respect to the broader issue, we find that in spite of the statements made by the Government about its commitment to the Canadian Jobs Strategy, it has in fact cut $190,000 this year and, furthermore, will likely cut $400 million to $500 million next year. The matter looks even worse after reviewing what was done in 1985.
One must recall what the Minister said and what in fact was done up until March 13 of this year, almost the end of the fiscal year. The Minister promised that $350 million would be allocated to the Job Entry Program but $81 million was spent. The Job Development Program was supposed to receive $700 million but approximately $400 million was spent. On and on it goes. The Minister made promises that were only partially fulfilled at the cost of thousands of jobs and perhaps the futures of thousands of young people. There is a lack of commitment to the program the Government itself has adopted.
I would hasten to point out that I do admire some of the components of the Canadian Jobs Strategy, to the extent that they try to address the significant problems of employment, training and job-entry experienced by young people. The fact is that it is too limited and has not addressed itself to the manifold problems of ensuring complete access to all opportunity for all young people as would be provided by the Youth Prospects Program which we proposed in our task force report.
In particular, Challenge '86 has come under the magnifying glass. Of course it is a program which is supposed to fund summer jobs for students. At the very beginning there was a reneging on the implied promise to young people when it was announced that $30 million of the moneys which would have gone into that program had been shifted to the census activity to provide jobs that last, on the average, about five weeks or
13728

May 28, 1986
Supply
six weeks. Those jobs will occur in May and June, a time of year when the scholastic obligations of many young people prevent them from having access to the program. They may hope to make as much as $600 or $700 if they manage to get one of the jobs allocated to young people in the census activity. In terms of the needs of young people in the Province of Ontario, for example, the province assumes that university and college students will earn something in the order of $1,300. That puts that kind of opportunity into perspective.
For all intents and purposes we can say that Challenge '86 has been cut when compared with the allocations to Challenge '85. However, what has been revealed and dramatized in recent days is the absolute ideological commitment on the part of the Government to fulfil the mandate it has from business, big business in particular, and the way in which it shifted funds from 1984 to 1986 in the direction of private enterprise and away from non-profit charitable organizations and local municipalities.
In 1984, about 90 per cent of Summer Canada funds went to non-profit organizations. In 1986, according to the Minister, approximately 38 per cent of Challenge '86 funds will be allocated to private enterprise. If jobs were provided to young people in the same numbers as before, and if we used that as our only criterion, I suppose our conclusion would be the same as that of the Government, that everything was fine. However, we have been hearing from across the country about the denial of funding to non-profit charitable organizations which have served a great many important needs-the needs of the urban poor, the disabled, the mentally retarded, certain classes of women, and so on. There is no substitute for those services. Day care programs and summer camps for poor children have been denied funds.
I should like to cite a couple of examples of where and how this has happened. In 1985, Chetwynd received $52,000. It had 25 group workers and served something in the order of 240 poor children in the City of Toronto. In 1986 it will not receive a penny.
Many of us on both sides of the House had an opportunity the other day to talk with members of the Save our Summer group, a coalition of charitable organizations which up until now has depended upon Challenge '86 funding for summer programs. They dramatized the tragedy of the misguided, compassionless attitude on the part of the Government.
One might say that it was just an inadvertency or kind of an accident, that they received so many applications from so many places they did not notice in this rush to create jobs for young people that in fact they were subsidizing those who were likely to find jobs anyway in private enterprise, probably at the cost of full-time workers, while at the same time depriving useful organizations of the opportunity to carry out their useful functions.
What dramatizes the silliness and lack of compassion of the Government is that it had a report prepared by its own people. It was an evaluation of Challenge '85. It demonstrated how
utterly misguided is the Government. The report indicated that if the Government wanted to create new jobs, it should put money into non-profit organizations; if it wanted to create useful jobs which serve a need, it should put money into nonprofit organizations; if it wanted to create career-oriented jobs which provide opportunity for young people to enhance their qualifications for the future, it should put money into nonprofit organizations; and if it wanted to create an experience at the end of which young people would feel proud of their accomplishments and would have made a contribution to the country which would not otherwise have been made, it should put money into non-profit organizations. However, the Government ignored its own report. Where did it put the money? It put the money into the hands of its friends.
Let me make perfectly clear that in my riding and in ridings across the country my colleagues and I have made every attempt to ensure that the very small business will take advantage of this kind of program, because that is from where young people will get career-oriented experience in business. In big business they are liable to be doing what the advertisements of the Government indicate-they will be carrying paintbrushes, perhaps whitewash brushes, and will be less able to claim experience of any significance in our modern technological society at the end of their summer experience than they would have had they done the useful kinds of jobs in which the non-profit organizations are involved.
I think it is clear from the arguments I have made, arguments which I am sure will be supported by my colleagues in the Official Opposition, that if one pays attention to all that has been said by those dependent upon Challenge '86 for fulfilling the needs of the various groups I described earlier, and if we are to respond to the cry from across the country that the Government should not ignore in its programs the plight of the non-profit voluntary sector, then the House will agree to the following motion:
That this House condemns the Government for its management of job-creation programs and in particular for diverting Challenge 86 funds for youth employment from non-profit service organizations to the private sector, thus not only eliminating valuable social services but at the same time limiting new job creation and career experience for youth.
I hope the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) has heard the criticisms, which I deem constructive criticisms, of the Government's failures. I hope she will rush back to her Department and, with the great strength and force of her prestige, bring about a change which will respond to those cries.


Mr. Weiner:: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has condemned the Government for its management of the job-creation program. We have created 630,000 new jobs since September, 1984. In British Columbia alone we have created 59,000 jobs. We have the lowest unemployment rate in four years. The Hon. Member criticized us for poor management, yet we have created 59,000 jobs in B.C. in 20 months, compared with the previous Government's record of 29,000 in 4.5 years.
May 28, 1986



In Montreal, we created 39,000 jobs in the last twelve months. The unemployment rate went down by 1.2 points.
We have restored confidence in the community. We are giving Canadians hope. We are putting a new feeling into the society. I can tell you-

The value of construction permits increased 11 per cent in 1985. During the first two months of 1986, 32 per cent more construction permits were issued than for the same period in 1985. Retail sales have increased 12 per cent since the last election.

We have done all of these things since September, 1984. The Hon. Member criticizes us for poor management yet we have created 31,889 jobs a month. Talking about youth unemployment, the rate was 18.4 per cent when we arrived. That rate was higher during the previous administration. It is dropping now. We say it is not good enough. We are going to work harder until we see it wiped out.


David Orlikow: What is it now?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: A lot of this is due to our desire to co-operate with business to promote employment opportunities, something which the NDP with anti-business attitudes will never understand. Ask the people of my province, the Province of Quebec, what happened to jobs when an anti-business Government was elected. Ask what happened to business and jobs under that provincial Government. Yes, we are stressing career enhancement employment, not make-work projects. There are funds being spent on preparing youth for future occupations and to encourage those still in school to enhance their education. Under Challenge '86 every project was evaluated on its merits and its job creation potential, not only by the Department but by each Member of Parliament. Every project was examined in detail, riding by riding on its merit. It was on merit that the decisions were made. In addition, there was an increase in the number of applicants this year. Some received less than in previous years, or in some cases were not accepted, not because they were not good but because there were other new applicants, many of whom applied for the first time. No organization, private sector or non-profit should plan budgets, programs et cetera-


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I can guess what the point of order is going to be. I had given the floor to the Hon. Member for Dollard (Mr. Weiner) on a question or comment. Is that what he understood?
Supply


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: I am raising comments on the Members' speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could I please ask the Member to conclude his comments to give appropriate time to the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) to reply and to allow other Members to ask questions.


David Orlikow: If he wants to make a speech, let him make it on his own time.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, those were all points raised by the Hon. Member. I am just saying how good we have managed the country since September, 1984 so that everybody will have a chance to reflect on our record.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see the enthusiasm with which my colleague across the way defends the Government, even when he is defending the Government against allegations or criticisms that in large part have not been made. Let me respond to a couple of things the Member said. He said that the Government is responsible for the changes in the unemployment picture. Let me first inform the Member, if he is not aware of it, that there has probably been about a 150,000 decrease in the total number of youth during the time the Government has been in office.
Second, it is ridiculous to lay claim for the improvement of the economic picture. Everyone who has looked at this with any understanding knows that the automobile industry, a significant example, responsible for something like 25 per cent of our exports and 25 per cent of the economy of Ontario, is largely responsible for industrial economic growth. The Government is on the verge of killing that golden goose by its policies on the automobile industry.
What the Hon. Member has not answered with respect to Challenge '86, has not refuted, is the allegation, the observation, that there has been a significant shifting of funds from the non-profit service and municipal sector to private enterprise. I have no problem with funding training opportunities in private enterprise.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: In my own riding I have taken an aggressive stance to ensure that small business will have access to the Canadian Job Strategy Program and the Challenge '86 Program, but not at the expense of needs that will not be met as a result of deprivation of significant agencies of funds as this Government has done and has admittedly done. There is no denying it. There is no denying that it has its own internal report. The Member has not addressed that. The report said if you want to create net new jobs, you do not put money into large private concerns that will create those jobs anyway to make it cheaper for them to displace their full-time workers. That is insane, Mr. Speaker. The Member has not answered my question with respect to the funding freeze in 1985 or the issue of the funding freeze that exists right now. Until he answers that question, all the pretty words in response to what

May 28, 1986
Supply
I say will not make an impression, not just on me, but on anybody.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I meant to raise this point of order when the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary was speaking, but I did not have an opportunity. I would like to refer you to S.O. 82(14) which says:
Following the speech of each Member, a period not exceeding ten minutes shall be made available, if required, to allow Members-
Members in the plural, Mr. Speaker.
-to ask questions and comment briefly on matters relevant to the speech and to allow responses thereto.
I felt the type of intervention being made by the Parliamentary Secretary completely violated the spirit of that Standing Order. I would ask that in the future when people rise to ask questions and make comments we have them comply with the rule in Standing Order 82(14).


Mr.   de Jong@: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I wish as well to draw the same matter to your attention. It seems to me in the past while that Parliamentary Secretaries particularly have been using the occasion of the 10 minute period after a Member has given an address to use most of the 10 minutes as a rebuttal. Very often government Members will not give speeches but will bootleg their ideas in the 10 minute question and answer period. Very often the speakers themselves do not have the opportunity to rebut the points made by Government Members, and in particular Parliamentary Secretaries. I think it goes against the very spirit of this important parliamentary reform. I think it is important that the Chair study this matter with some care and advise Members of the intent of our Standing Orders, particularly Government Members, when it appears as though they are using most of the 10 minute period to make short speeches.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Let me deal briefly with both Hon. Members' points of order. The Hon. Member for Dollard (Mr. Weiner) has the right like anyone else to make his comments. I found them a bit long. That is why I intervened. We must also remember that in that particular case the Chair saw only one other Member in the House who was ready to ask a question or make a comment.


Mr. Valcourt:: Exactly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It depends on each question. I realize 10 minutes is allowed for questions or comments. If the Chair sees many Members stand who wish to speak, the Chair tends to cut off Members more abruptly. In this case, I wanted to give the time to the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) who I saw rising at the same time as the Parliamentary Secretary. I will make sure that the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) gets at least equal time for reply. On a question or a comment, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East.


William Warren Allmand: I was rising for debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We are still on questions or comments. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong).


Mr.   de Jong@: I would Ike to address a question to my colleague. It was important that he pointed out that he is not opposed to job creation efforts of the private sector. In Saskatchewan we have had a Conservative Government since 1982 and we have seen a steady erosion of support to social agencies, organizations that help the handicapped and the mentally retarded and help kids go to summer camp. Traditionally university and high school students have been able to find work during the summer doing important social services in the community. These students have been able to earn income to enable them to go back to university by providing important services. We are now in a period of cut-backs to social services and job creation programs which help people involved in social services. Does my colleague not find it shameful that there are cut-backs, not only to human services for the disadvantaged in our communities but also to summer employment programs which have also traditionally helped the underprivileged?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize what my colleague said about our Party's attitude on job-creation programs of small business. We must focus upon the fact that, as the internal report of the Department of Employment and Immigration demonstrated, in so many instances Challenge '86 is funding jobs which would have existed anyway. It is incumbent upon the Government to demonstrate that, with respect to private enterprise jobs, career-oriented opportunities will be created and that these will not be at the expense of fulltime workers.
Anyone who has contemplated the future knows that there will have to be a re-examination of our concept of useful work. Young people across the country were aware that their contributions in terms of human health services are just as valuable as those of computer programmers, carpenters, politicians, and any of the other previously recognized jobs. There must be a recognition that the future must involve the enhancement of opportunities for useful work in providing needed human services. The Government has failed to anticipate that. If the Government had listened to youth, it might have learned that.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party fully supports the motion before the House which condemns the Government's policy with respect to summer employment. With respect to summer employment, the Conservative Party is misdirected, inadequate, short-sighted, cruel and contradictory. I will deal with each of those points in turn during my remarks.
The disaster in summer employment policy is only part of the Government's disregard for youth. Right after the election
May 28, 1986

the Government cancelled the First Choice Program which would have put 100,000 young people into positions in which they could train on the job, building a bridge between the school and the workplace. In recent months the Government cancelled Katimavik. It cancelled the youth conference which then went ahead under the initiative of youth groups throughout the country. The Government cancelled the Minister's budget in her former Department and then, to save her face, it reintroduced her under the Department of Employment and Immigration.
The motion this afternoon is principally directed to the Challenge '86 program which deals with student summer employment. The subject is student summer employment. Each time we put questions to the Ministers and the Parliamentary Secretaries they do not answer them. I do not know if they are badly informed or are doing it on purpose, but they continually confuse youth unemployment statistics with student unemployment statistics. As we all know, to qualify for the Challenge '86 program you must be a person who will return to university or college in the fall. The general program for youth unemployment deals with that great mass of young people between the ages of 15 and 25 who are not going back to school. That is another group of people.
The high rate of unemployment to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred, which came down from 18 per cent to 16 per cent, refers to youth unemployment. It does not deal with the problem of student unemployment, which is dealt with separately by Statistics Canada. These are people who are going back to university or college in the fall. That is what we are talking about this afternoon and I do not want to hear statistics about the general unemployment rate. I know that helps to divert attention from what we are discussing. I do not want to hear statistics about the youth unemployment rate because that is not what we are discussing.
With respect, that is what has caused a lot of the disruptions in this House. If we received more statesmenlike and direct answers to the questions put in this House we would not have instances of what happened today in the House. Some of the Ministers on that side answer questions properly, but I am afraid that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and many other Ministers do not and they actually mislead the House.
In this House I have brought to the attention of this Minister and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) grievances which were brought to my attention in my constituency office and here in Ottawa by community groups which have either had their funding cut entirely this year or cut to a great extent in relation to what they received in previous years. The other day I asked the Minister to restore the budget and make the system more flexible. Instead of answering my question she said:
I find it rather deplorable that the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East should be against jobs for ergotherapy students, for Concordia University physiotherapy students, among others, for Henri Bradet Centre gerontology students in his own riding. He is against that? I fail to understand.
Supply
I do not know what I can call that to avoid violating the rules of the House, Mr. Speaker, but it is completely false and the Minister knows it is completely false. If she made a statement like that outside the House I could sue her for libel before the civil courts. For her to say that I am opposed to students at Concordia University, the Henri Bradet Centre and others getting jobs like that is false. She knows that I never said that. However, that is the kind of diversionary tactic that is used by her and other Ministers which causes the disruptions which have been happening in the House. The Minister knows very well that I support those projects. If she was in touch with her Department throughout the country she would know that I initialled support for those programs.
I am opposed to the cut of $19 million in the SEED program, the primary program for student employment. I am also opposed to the Government's policy of giving more of that smaller amount of money to the business sector rather than the community voluntary sector. A lot of good community organizations are getting no money at all, or are being cut back considerably.
That was my question to the Minister. She brought up this red herring about me being opposed to some very good projects, which I was not opposed to at all. That was false. I cannot say she was lying to the House because they will throw me out again. I cannot say she was telling an untruth because they will throw me out again. However, she was not telling the truth when she said I opposed those programs. If she can find any quote of mine where I said I opposed those programs, in writing or verbally or whatever, I will make the greatest apology to her that one has ever heard in the House of Commons. I will even write letters to all the Montreal newspapers apologizing. I know she cannot do that.
This year the Government has cut the Challenge '86 program from $205 million in 1985 to $108 million in 1986. The SEED component was cut from $146 million 1985 to $127 million in 1986. To put that in better perspective, let us look at how it touches various groups in Toronto. For example, in 1985 the average grant to community groups in Toronto was $15,600. In 1986 it is $8,800, or a cut of 44 per cent. These figures are based on a survey of community groups in Toronto who were cut back this year. That is what I want the Minister to deal with. Explain that. Justify that. In 1985 the average number of student work weeks was 66.5 for community voluntary groups. In 1986 it was 36.2 work weeks, a decrease of 46 per cent. That is the sort of thing we want answers to.
The Minister says there are no quotas limiting the number of voluntary community projects which can be accepted. Let me put this on the record. In the 1984 Summer Canada Program, a carry-over of the program put in place by the Liberal Government, 100 per cent of the SEED money went to non-profit and community groups. In 1985 some 80 per cent of the money in the SEED component went to voluntary community groups. This year so far it is about 65 per cent. So we had

May 28, 1986
Supply
a decline from 100 per cent to 80 per cent to 65 per cent. In the Elouse the other day the Minister asked: "What is wrong with that?" Of course, half the groups being funded are good groups. We have no objection to those groups being funded. However, this policy of diverting, which is what it is, money from the community voluntary sector to the private business sector is leaving a lot of very worth-while community service groups high and dry. These groups have operated during the summer for over 13 years. They were more or less built upon and improved upon year by year by various Governments, Conservative and Liberal. In 1979 the Conservative Government helped improve the programs. In the first year of this Conservative Government it did not tinker with that program. If anything, it tried to improve upon it. However, starting with the Challenge '85 program we saw a movement of funds towards the private sector.
I say that contradicts Conservative policy. One day of the week the Conservatives are saying let us not throw money at problems. I heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) saying that many times. The private sector can do it all. We should deregulate and let the private sector do its job. That is why I find it kind of strange when the Parliamentary Secretary gets up and says "We created 600,000 jobs". I thought the private sector created most of those jobs. The Conservatives are now claiming they created 600,000 jobs. I wish they would make up their minds. One minute they believe in the private market economy, which means business operates free of Government intervention; the next minute they are claiming responsibility for the creation of jobs put in place by the private sector. They are now taking money away from the voluntary sector which relies on public funds and things like the United Appeal, and giving it to the private sector. They are distorting the operation of the private market economy. In my riding there are examples of one private sector business being funded under this program and a competitor down the street is not getting a subsidy. So the one business has an unfair advantage over the other. That is distorting the market economy in a small market area.
There is a policy of diverting funds from the community sector to the private sector. The Minister has admitted that. The Deputy Minister admitted that. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) admitted it. Whether they call it a target or a goal, I call it a quota. It boils down to approximately 40 per cent of the money going to the private sector. The very evening of the day I was put out of this House for questioning the veracity of the Minister's statements, I went to the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. The Minister was not there, neither was her Parliamentary Secretary. The Deputy Minister was there and I put it to him. I checked all over the country and it is coming out to about 40 per cent. Is that a quota? He said they do not call it a quota. It is not a quota. It is a goal. Approximately 40 per cent goes to the private sector but it is not a quota. I said in this constituency, that constituency and this other constituency, when people are going to their project officers and saying they would like to take the money from
three of these business organizations and give it to two or three or even one voluntary community group, the project officer says no, they cannot do that because a certain percentage of the money has to go to the private sector. What does the Deputy Minister say? He says they have a very decentralized Department and the managers in the field, in putting into operation these goals, might in fact be operationalizing what the Department wants to do by using what I might call quotas. If I ever heard playing with words, that is it. That is why I asked the Minister the next day what she calls it. Of course, she did not answer my question. There is a policy that approximately 40 per cent of the money, and it varies from region to region, goes to the business sector.
A lot of very good projects in the community sector are being eliminated. The Department did an evaluation of the Challenge '85 program. What did it say? It said that the nonprofit sector was more successful than the private sector firms in generating jobs. It also said that almost two-thirds of the positions created in a non-private sector were of the administrative, professional variety, as compared to about one-quarter of the positions funded by the private sector. The community sector is better than the business sector with respect to career oriented jobs.
It also states that participants placed with employers in the non-private sector were considerably more likely to make positive statements about their summer employment experience than their private sector counterparts. There is more satisfaction from the students who work with the community projects than with the business projects.
It also points out that the lower degree of incremental impact in the private sector is of particular concern in light of the finding that 33 per cent of the career related jobs funded in the private sector were not, in the students' opinion, related to their course of studies. These are not my words, but the words in the evaluation report that was mandated by the Department of Employment and Immigration.
The Department did not even follow that report. The evaluators made those recommendations but the Department gave more money to the business sector instead of less than the previous year. While that is the Department's right, I wish it would be straightforward and say so, rather than trying to talk around the issue, gild the lily, and not answer the question. The Department's policy amounts to giving more assistance to the business sector and to ignoring the community volunteer sector.
Let me point out some of the projects that are being left out as a result of this policy. I will commence with one that I have already mentioned several times, and my colleague, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), will mention it again when he speaks later. In centre Montreal, the Montreal Association for Retarded Children runs a summer camp for retarded children every year. Last year under the Challenge '85 program they hired 30 university students to
May 28, 1986

monitor these retarded children during the summer. This year they can only hire five or six students, which means that many retarded children who would have gone to camp will have to stay in the centre of the city during the summer. The Department is taking that money and funding employment at La Ronde, an amusement park in Montreal. The same thing is happening in Vancouver. There is not much career relation to those jobs.
The Minister mentioned some good projects in my riding that are being funded, but let me mention some good projects that are not being funded as a result of her policy. These are projects that were funded year after year. SPARA Foundation helps young people who have problems with drug addiction. It is a very substantial program that has been supported by business and public sector people in Montreal for a long time. It will receive no money this year.
The DES Action Program has attempted to advise young women across the country that they might be subject to cancer as a result of the DES drug that their mothers took 25 years ago when they were pregnant with these young women. It is a group of people who have had cancer problems in their own families. They are trying to do something about it but their funds have been cut off. The Salvation Army residence for senior citizens will receive no money. Alliance Quebec, the action group for minority language rights in the west end of Montreal, will receive no money.
I believe the point of this debate is to ask the Government to consider restoring the budget we had last year, to make sure that those voluntary community groups that are providing essential services to the community continue to receive the same funding. Of course, if they have done a bad job they should be cut off, but there is no evidence of that.
I ask the Minister to consider a return to the use of constituency advisory groups. When we had the constituency advisory groups the choice of projects was in the hands of people from the community. These groups consisted of people from small business, from churches and from community organizations which would advise the Minister and the Member of Parliament. In my constituency we used to have 12 to 15 representatives who got together every year, considered all of the applications and voted on them secretly. They decided on the priorities and recommended what programs should be funded. This process worked very well most of the time. Furthermore, it is better for the Government and the Member of Parliament because it is a community based, grass roots process.
I ask the Minister to consider those three proposals. She should restore the funding, eliminate that criteria of 40 per cent or 35 per cent funding to the private sector, and consider bringing back the constituency advisory groups for next year.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member described what was happening to many worth-while non-profit community projects in his constituency which were turned down for funding this year. It is very similar to what we are experiencing in virtually every city in Canada. While he was making his
Supply
inquiries with the Department officials in Montreal, was he able to see some of the private sector employment programs which have been funded and assess their value?
Let me give him an example of one such program in Winnipeg. It involves a grant of almost $200,000 to train people in the retail field, 20 of whom will be working at the Hudson's Bay Company. First, there are no assurances from the Hudson's Bay Company that those people will find employment there once they are finished. Second, I have not been able to determine what these persons wil do for that nearly $200,000 that has been given. The money is not used to subsidize the wages, and Lord knows that the Hudson's Bay Company does not need any subsidy. As far as I can determine, the funds are not used for academic training. Has the Member experienced this situation and been able to determine any more about these private sector projects which look like real rip-offs to many of us?


William Warren Allmand: I have been able to get some information, but it has been very difficult. I have been able to get the information from Members of Parliament who have had to examine the list for their own ridings. I have been able to get the information from certain officials in the Department who are themselves upset with the program and have surreptitiously sent me information. However, when I have tried to get information directly from the Department it will not release it. It is a rather strange approach for a Party that said it stood for freedom of information and criticized the Liberals because they thought our Bill on freedom of information was too restrictive. Now we cannot get simple items like this from the Government.
Let me give the Member an example. I illustrated some of the projects in my constituency that were turned down. Let me tell the Hon. Member about some of the projects that were funded. The Minister will probably talk about some very good projects that have been funded; the fact is that if the Government is going to spend $127 million some good projects will be funded. However, some should never have been funded. For instance, Zellers is probably a very good business organization-


David Orlikow: Profitable too.


William Warren Allmand: Very profitable. It does not need subsidies from the Government in order to hire students for the summer. There is a very large pharmacy chain that is receiving money to hire students. I learned that these students are putting boxes on shelves, which confirms the comments in the evaluation report that was done by her own Department last year.
There are corner candy stores, ice-cream stores, corner supermarkets, bicycle stores and small landscaping firms that are being funded. No doubt, all of these are probably good businesses, but I do not know why they are being funded under this program. The Minister will probably say that I am against private business, but that is not true.

May 28, 1986
Supply
However, in answer to the Hon. Member's question, why should scarce public funds be diverted from the community sector that takes care of the aged, disadvantaged children, the handicapped, the retarded and others, to be given to these free enterprise businesses which did not need this money in the past to hire students? In any case, the jobs are not very career related. Some private sector jobs, such as ones for engineering and accounting, are very career related, but I do not see how laying sod, selling drugs over the counter and so on is very career related.
The Government would at least be honest if it said it merely wanted to create summer employment, no matter what it was. However, it is hypocritical when it claims to support career related projects and then funds jobs like that in the private sector.


Mr. Lopez:: Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand why the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) is wasting so much energy criticizing the Government. When the Hon. Member was in power, he worked very hard at doing nothing.
Everybody in this country knows that youth unemployment has gone down since the Progressive Conservative Party came to power. And it could go down even more, if we could spend the time of the House on being more constructive. If the time he spent criticizing had been used to propose valid arguments and new ideas to create more jobs, that would have been far more constructive.
We are not satisfied, because we still have unemployment among our young people. Our goal is to get rid of youth unemployment altogether. However, we are realistic and we realize there is a lot less unemployment than there was in the Hon. Member's time. I think we are on the right track. What we need now is for everybody to be realistic. We must all work together and work toward the same goals instead of indulging in negative criticism. And if he can't think of anything else, after so many years' experience in Parliament, if that is all they have learned, I am really disappointed in his performance. I have been a Member of the House for only a year and a half, but I think my attitude is a lot more constructive.
And I would urge you to do likewise.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's question indicates how much out of touch he is with what is going on in this country. I challenge him to come with me and meet the people I have met in different cities of Canada. They are the ones who are complaining, and I am simply here to put on the floor of the House their complaints. The other day I met with a coalition of groups from Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver representing hundreds of organizations which were being cut back. They were complaining. When the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) and I bring this up in the House, we are doing so on behalf of those people.
Some of those people saw the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) in their offices on Monday morning, but received no positive response whatsoever. The Hon. Member fails to even understand the nature of this Parliament. It is our job in the Oppositoin to criticize programs when they are inadequate, when they are a step backwards rather than a step forward. The Challenge '86 Program this year is a step backward from what the Government did last year. We on this side of the House will continue to criticize on behalf of those young people and those service groups from all over the country who come to see us in our offices and write us letters, because we represent them, not big business.


Mr. Warner:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that in Challenge '85 we created a record number of jobs in my riding of Stormont-Dundas, and indications this year are that we will create an even larger number of jobs in our area.
I would like to point out that where these jobs are, and where these jobs are going to be over the next few years, is in the expanding sector of our economy. Surely both the NDP and the Liberal Party realize that the private sector is where most of the new jobs will be created. If we are going to have career-related training, surely it is going to tend more towards the private sector than the public sector.
I would also suggest that as prosperity increases the voluntary sector may be a little stronger and have more resources than they had in previous years. We might see the voluntary sector responding to some of the areas where the Hon. Member is suggesting we are not funding as we funded before.
In my riding we had a tremendous amount of over-subscription and a lot of very good projects had to be turned down. But I also know that this year we will create a record number of jobs for students, not just funded by Government. We are going to have less Government and we will have a stronger private sector.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member's question, of course there were probably more jobs created under the program in his area last year than previously. That is easy to do when we take a great percentage of the money and give it to the private sector where we only have to pay for 50 per cent of the jobs, whereas in the voluntary sector we had to pay 100 per cent. It does not take a lot of imagination or intelligence to know that if one takes $100 and gives it to the voluntary sector it will only produce 100 jobs, but if one gives it to the business sector it will produce 200 jobs. That is simple. That is what is being done.


An Hon. Member:: What is wrong with that?

May 28, 1986


William Warren Allmand: What is wrong with that? What is wrong is that many of those jobs were going ahead anyway and were not counted under the Government's program. If we count the jobs under the Government's program it is true, because in the past under Summer Canada we could only fund voluntary groups. So under the program, of course we are going to fund more jobs, but a lot of those jobs in the private sector went ahead anyway and I have definite proof of that from my own area.
Second, if it is in the private sector where the Hon. Member says the growth should be, I agree, but I always thought from listening to the rhetoric of Hon. Members opposite that the private sector should be private. The Prime Minister has said: "Let's not throw money at the problem". The private sector should operate privately. I thought they were big boys, operated in the free market economy and did not need the help of the Government. The scarce resources should go to the people who are not in the private economy. So I support the private economy, but I do not believe in doing it in this way, which is a distortion of the private economy and misuses public funds for the wrong reasons.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Debate resumed. The Minister of State (Youth) (Mrs. Champagne).


Hon. Andree Champagne (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak positively this afternoon on the subject of what the Government has accomplished in the way of job creation and youth projects, and especially Challenge 86.

I must say that the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) has really outdone himself today in drawing up the motion in front of us. It really seems as if he has emptied his mind completely in a jumble of buzz words which could easily lead one to believe that he is against jobs for youth rather than the opposite, so much so that he felt he had to correct his words himself. His colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong), also had to ask us not to believe that the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville is against jobs.
The Hon. Member's motion jumps from pillar to post. He would do well to heed the words of David Lloyd George who said: "The most dangerous thing in the world is to leap a chasm in two jumps". The Hon. Member has taken two or three jumps in his motion today.
Nevertheless I will do my best to interpret what he appears to be saying, even though one's first impression is that he is condemning those youths who find jobs in the private sector. Is that what he is saying to our youths? Is private sector employment a dirty word now?


David Orlikow: If it's not useful, yes.
Supply


Andrée  Champagne: Is summer employment for a larger number of students such a damnable goal?


William Warren Allmand: Call it subsidized private employment not private employment.


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, in the first part of his motion, the Hon. Member condemns the Government for its management of job-creation programs, a criticism that is clearly unjustified if we look at the facts. Jobs have been created as never before since this Government was sworn in. Jobs have been created in every province, and as the Minister of State for Youth, I am especially pleased about the fact that since September 1984, nearly 100,000 jobs have been created for young people. I think this compares very favourably with the 285,000 jobs lost in this category under the Liberal Government, but that seems to fall on deaf ears.

In the month of April alone, 52,000 new jobs were created for youth while the unemployment rate declined almost a full percentage point. That is job creation. It is true that many of our youths, too many, are without jobs, but they have not given up hope. On the contrary, as the results of a research survey published in the January 7, 1986 issue of Maclean's Magazine revealed, today's youth are not disillusioned. They are not despairing or lacking direction. They have adopted a pragmatic attitude toward the challenges ahead of them.

Mr. Speaker, according to the survey, more than 80 per cent of respondents felt that reliance on personal initiative and skills was preferable to depending on the Government for everything, especially in the matter of jobs. Clearly, Opposition Members are not getting the message from our people. They are not taking the trouble to listen to them, and, as we saw again on the weekend, they are not around when youth speaks.
Last summer the Government proved that it had been listening to young people. The Innovations employment program we set up for them turned out to be an unqualified success. Challege 85 made it possible to create over 100,000 jobs for Canadian students, close to 20 per cent more than the previous year. Not only were there more jobs, but they were also better jobs in the sense that from the employer's viewpoint they met the needs of local industries while giving students opportunities to work in fields related to their chosen career.
This summer the Government is continuing along this successful path with Challenge '86. We have also built on the lessons learned last year. Improvements to component programs have been made in response to the assessment and comments of business associations, student organizations, community groups and elected representatives at all levels. As

May 28, 1986
Supply
in 1985, the six Challenge programs are structured to serve the widest possible range of student and sponsor needs and to fit local and regional priorities.
Funding for Challenge '86 is $180 million, as the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) and I announced on December 19. Some $127 million, or 70 per cent of the funding, will be channelled through the Summer Employment-Experience Development component of Challenge '86, SEED for short.
A success beyond expectations last summer, once again SEED offers employers wage subsidies to stimulate the creation of incremental career-development opportunities for students.

Mr. Speaker, there can be no question of subsidizing jobs which would have been available to begin with. Employers must prove that these jobs would not have been created otherwise, and if they have already agreed to hire a given number of students, salaries for students hired as additional help will be subsidized. Priority is given to employers in all sectors-private industry, municipal administration, educational institutions, non-profit organizations-particularly to employers hiring students for jobs which will ease their transition from school to labour market.

Last night on The Journal we saw a very good segment concerning youth employment. We heard young people say: "It is so very difficult to get a job". When asked why, they responded: "Because I do not have experience". Of course, these young people are now between 19 and 22 years of age and have gone through summers in which they did not learn anything practical. They now have to go back, as we saw last night, and utilize programs such as Job Entry to learn skills which will allow them to enter the labour force.
What we are trying to do now with programs such as Challenge '86 is to help students while they are in school, during the summer, to get some practical experience that will facilitate the transition between school and the workforce upon graduation. This is what the program is doing. Over the years we will see great progress as these young people finally graduate and enter the labour force.

The Summer Employment/Experience Development program has the full support of profit-oriented organizations, unions and others such as the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and the Federation of Canadian Students.

A while ago we were talking about Vancouver. Yes, wage subsidies from SEED will help create jobs for students as hosts and hostesses at the Canada pavillion in Vancouver. The
undertaking will be cost-shared with the British Columbia Ministry of Labour contributing to both students and youth.
Even the fine achievement of Expo 86 has not escaped the reckless criticism of the Opposition. In fact, CEIC will be contributing $158,000 out of the $250,000 set aside for 49 student host and hostess jobs at the Canada pavilion. The balance of funds will help support other student jobs through the Challenge '86 B.C.-Canada Summer Employment Program and not Expo 86.
Under the on-side training incentive program, which is not a part of Challenge, CEIC has to date contributed nearly $570,000 toward the training of 4,037 students hired or to be hired on the Expo 86 site. Total funding of these initiatives represents less than 5 per cent of the funds allocated to the British Columbia region.
The Expo 86 initiative is one of many ways the federal Government is working with the provinces and territories in jointly funded and administered Challenge '86 projects. There may also be instances of separate provincial and federal programming, with every effort being made to operate in a complementary way.
I come now to the supposedly contentious issue of fund allocations under Challenge '86. Members of the Opposition, with their fixation on comparing private sector versus nonprofit allocations, have lost sight of one essential point. They have forgotten the students themselves. The issue needs to be understood in the light of this Government's entire approach to training and job creation.

When the First Ministers announced the Canadian Jobs Strategy in Regina nearly 18 months ago, the various levels of Government in this country agreed on a number of principles. First of all, they agreed that training and job creation should be economy-oriented and that the emphasis should be on small business and on stimulating Canada's entrepreneurial spirit.
The First Ministers also indicated that the new formula should be adjusted to current labour market needs. The provincial and territorial Governments gave their approval, and I am happy to say that the federal Government has adhered to these principles when developing the Canadian Job Strategy programs.

What the motion is saying is: "Never mind about training and job creation that is geared to the labour market. Never mind about helping young people gain real job experience in the regular work environment. Forget about all that and put all your dollars into the non-profit sector".

However, the motion fails to indicate what Opposition Members intend to do with all these young people once they have acquired experience in this not very profitable sector.
May 28, 1986



The Government is not discriminating against the non-profit sector through its Challenge '86 funding. This year the private sector is more active in the program with 26 per cent more applications than last year. Non-profit applications are at about the same level as last year. In these circumstances it is only natural to expect more funds to be directed toward the private sector than was the case last year. As I have indicated, in line with the Canadian Jobs Strategy, we welcome private sector participation. I find it hard to understand why some Members can be so totally against young students getting jobs which usually last longer, pay better and in which they can really obtain practical experience, as in the private sector. This is where the great majority of them will find permanent, rewarding employment upon graduation. There are no quotas. We are trying to encourage good balance at the national level between private sector and non-private sector jobs. We are thinking primarily of the students and of their future careers.
To date, $77 million has been allocated to the non-profit sector. Surely there is a large number of jobs being created and a large number of needy people being helped. Our goal is to help young people move in a direction that will prove advantageous to them over the long run. They must fasten their hopes and aspirations on jobs that will open up a world of opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, this year the Government spent about 700 million dollars on the youth employment and training program. This represents about 40 per cent of total funding allocated to the Canadian Jobs Strategy. Furthermore, the Government will spend 30 million dollars on hiring thousands of young people to work for the Census this summer. And through our network of 450 Canada Employment Centres for Students, we are once again working together with business, local agencies and Governments to provide jobs for as many as 435,000 students, and maybe more.
Needless to say, these students need our support and the cooperation of all sectors in our country.
I would like to emphasize the word job. Our task consists in working very closely with other sectors to help young people, especially those who manage to find a job or would be able to do so: Helping young people is our aim.

One component of Challenge '86 deals particularly with potential school drop-outs and young people with learning disabilities. It was started as a pilot project in 1985 and was called Work Orientation Workshops or WOW. These workshops are conducted in partnership with community organizations, businesses, social service agencies and local school boards. Together they help ensure that these young people overcome barriers to future participation in our labour market. A combination of workshops and on-the-job skills training
Supply
encourages them to continue their schooling or seek more specific training related to their ambitions. These are significant initiatives. Students not only get a chance to earn wages but also to build a bridge between their education and the real world of work.
We are not just concerned with students. The Canadian Jobs Strategy focuses on the needs of young people who have left school and are currently at odds with the labour market. Already thousands of these young people are participating in the Job Entry Program. Let me give the House an example of this.
A young woman visited one of our Canada Employment Centres in southern Ontario recently. She is a high school drop-out, depressed and on welfare, with a history of brief work spells interrupted by long periods of unemployment. She talked to an employment counsellor, who referred her to the Job Entry Program. Through this program, she has been receiving computer-based instruction from a private training firm. She is now applying these skills in the business office of a major hotel. She is not only learning in the classroom but she is also gaining practical work experience and training in the workplace. She is now much more confident about her chances.

Mr. Speaker, this is just one young women, but this small investment is very important to her future career. And so society has another winner. This combination of on-the-job training and institutional training, plus practical experience, makes it much easier for our young people to enter the labour market.

I repeat that our concern is with people, particularly young people. If Canada is to sustain the momentum for economic renewal, we must use our resources in an effective way. Challenge '86 was designed as a job-creation and a skillstraining program. The Government's determination is that the funds allocated to the program will be invested in those projects and in creating opportunities which will produce the largest possible number of jobs for young Canadians.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, earlier I referred to the complacent incompetence with which the Ministry of State for Youth is operated. Surely to have come to the House with words that were completely written out on 20 sheets of paper with a complete absence of any knowledge of the content of debate is a demonstration of the validity of that allegation and the refusal of the Government to address the real issues.
We heard from the Minister a failed leap of rhetoric in her criticism of the language of Shakespeare, but I do congratulate her for the attempt. She said that one should not leap over a chasm in two leaps. We know that the Minister has already taken one leap from her own Ministry to the Department of Employment and Immigration and we know what the end of that will be.

May 28, 1986
Supply


David Orlikow: Next election she'll be gone.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I would not accuse the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) of lying because it may be untrue and it certainly would be unparliamentary. I would not accuse the Minister of State for Youth of misleading the House because while it may be true, it certainly is unparliamentary. However, when the Minister of State alleges-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I should tell the Hon. Member that he is walking on slippery ground right now. It may not be unparliamentary, but I would ask him to proceed.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Having reached the shores of that little excursion into rhetoric, let me point out the subject of it. The Minister of State said that there was a meeting of young people over the weekend in the City of Ottawa. Let me point out that that meeting was held because the Government failed to hold the forum it had promised those young people it would hold. Of course, the Minister of State could not have known that I was there because they refused to invite her. She could not see that I was in fact there.
If the Minister had been listening to debate rather than reading what her assistants had written for her, she would also know that we have not been so silly as to criticize young people for taking private-enterprise jobs.


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Very inadvertently, the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walker-ville (Mr. McCurdy) has misled the House by saying that I could not have known whether he was there or not because I was not invited nor were members of my staff. I did meet with the young people so he is misleading the House, Sir.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think that is a matter of debate. I do not think that the Minister meant that the Hon. Member was deliberately misleading the House. I think it is a matter of debate.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: No, Mr. Speaker, it's true. They met with the Minister of State for Youth after the meeting that she did not attend.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will allow the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville to complete his comments.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask just a couple of questions.


Andrée  Champagne: Well, ask them.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: In evaluating the private-enterprise career-oriented summer jobs as opposed to those in the non-profit area, would it be appropriate to ask if those jobs would have existed whether or not they were funded by Challenge '86? So much of what the Minister says flies in the face of her own report. She says that career-oriented jobs in the private sector are better than those in the non-profit sector, but she has her own report that was prepared for her, just like her speech was.
She ought to know that there are more new jobs created in the non-profit sector than in the private-enterprise sector and that those jobs are satisfying and more useful.
My God, when government Members enter into debate, let them participate on their own and not be limited to what others tell them to say and thus fail to address the question.


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, the evaluation referred to by the Hon. Member had to do of course with the 1985 program. As in any self-respecting department, once the program has been in place for a few months we try to assess its strong points and its weaker aspects. That is a matter of course. It is something we did in order indeed to improve the Challenge 86 program, and we are quite proud of the changes made. Besides, I think that change we made precisely to make sure the jobs allotted to the private sector would not have been otherwise created and this is something we have done. We have also asked employers to sign a form in that case.
Something else has helped a lot. Last year, when applications came in, jobs were provided only on a first come, first served basis. But such has not been the case in 1986, because a deadline was set. We could then match possible employers with possible employees. And each Hon. Member, including the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy), could decide, make recommendations and discuss with the people at the Employment and Immigration office the projects that would be accepted or not. And the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) said so himself earlier. He also has done that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) for a question or comment.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief comment, because I will be speaking later and the Minister will be there. I have three questions to test the Minister's intellectual honesty.
First, is it a fact that in each and every constituency in the Montreal area, 40 per cent of the moneys were reserved for the private sector? I would like the Minister to produce the written instructions sent to those people.
Second, can the Minister tell us why, in my constituency, a company such as Aqua Parc got, without my permission, an extra $22,000, this money being given to a private sector operator who would have created the jobs anyway, and in turn an FTQ project was turned down?


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member's first question, I have never seen any written instructions or other form of percentage rule being given to anyone.
We received 27 per cent more applications from the private sector to create the greatest possible number of jobs. Yes, we
May 28, 1986

made sure that a certain number of jobs went to the private sector, but without there being a quota. I never heard of that figure in any form. Indeed, the current figures are in the vicinity of 35-65, and you could ask for instance in other constituencies, according to areas, if I am not mistaken it is in the constituency of our colleague for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) where industry is perhaps in greater difficulty, in his constituency I think 20 per cent goes to the private sector and 80 per cent to the other side.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Some 40 per cent in all the ridings of the Montreal area!


Andrée  Champagne: I have never seen any written direction to that effect.
As to the other question, the Hon. Member must be very happy indeed that additional amounts were made available to his riding. I am happy for instance that a student in the hotel business will work and be in charge of food management. Another student specializing in mechanical engineering will work and be in charge of a pumping station, while another student specializing in law enforcement techniques will work for the security service. These are only three of several jobs which have been created.
And when you say without your permission, my dear friend ... I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I address the Chair. The Hon. Member has stated that all of this was done without his permission. I think that everybody is well aware that Hon. Members have been able to see a list and come to an understanding with Employment and Immigration Canada officials. Whenever there was a consensus, there were no problems and all projects were accepted. When there was no agreement, the Minister's office had the responsibility to make decisions, a procedure everybody is aware of.


Ms. McDonald:: Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns which have been raised here about the whole program. I want to raise a question about my own riding. Certainly non-profit community activities such as day care, sports, and others were cut back. Extremely good projects were cut back from previous years.
However, I should like to raise a particular question with the Minister concerning consultation with the MP's office. A number of projects came in. My office was consulted. I gave advice, some of which was not taken and some of which was taken. On the majority of projects there was no consultation. We received a batch of projects by special delivery. My assistant replied the very same day by telephone, but was told that the decisions had been taken without any input from the MP's office. Further, there was a project for which we never saw any application whatsoever. Thus, out of $190,000 worth of projects, $137,300 were allocated without input, improperly allocated. Is the Minister prepared to have this money made up so that there can be input according to the normal understanding?
Supply


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, on the second point raised by the Hon. Member, I do not know how it could have happened. I will certainly inquire. I know that my colleagues and I spent one day from seven o'clock in the morning until eleven o'clock at night looking at each and every one of the projects in Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, trying to make what would be an acceptable choice to the people in the riding. I will look into the dates and so on and get back to the Hon. Member.
The Hon. Member said that there were some cut-backs and that even some of the non-profit organizations did not receive any funding. I think we must realize that this is a job-creation and training program for students during the summer. It is not a way to give core funding to social organizations, and this is what has been happening for the last 15 years. These organizations were counting on summer employment money as their core funding. This is wrong, and this will not happen again.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I want to say how much the people of Winnipeg and I appreciate the fact that we are having this debate. This year thousands of community organizations, which were able to provide very necessary and needed services to people who were handicapped, old, and sick, will not receive the funds they received in other years. They have come here to Ottawa and have held meetings in cities across the country to express their amazement, consternation, and complete dissatisfaction with the decisions of the Government.
The reason they are unhappy is very simple. I wish the Minister could remain here to listen to some of the complaints. We have learned that the budget for the Summer Employment Experience Development Program for this year has been cut by $36 million. There was a further diversion of the shrunken amount into private sector wage subsidies. In the case of the SEED program, non-profit groups are receiving about 50 per cent of the $127 million in current funding instead of up to 80 per cent of last year's $163 million, which is an over-all reduction of almost $67 million this year. It is not surprising that there have been very vigorous complaints from non-profit groups in urban centres. They feel the rug has been pulled out from under social service programs which are so necessary in their communities.
The Government made a very clear ideological choice. The Government started with a very simple principle, that jobs in the private sector are useful, necessary and good; jobs in the non-profit sector are wasteful and not very important. Starting with that principle, the Government paid wage subsidies to private business in preference to providing social services. The Government ignored the problems of the inner city in order to pad a business balance sheet. What it is saying in stark terms is: "We are not going to help the helpless. We are going to help those who do not really need it".
This ideological choice, and it was a heartless choice, was brought to the attention of the Government just this week by a

May 28, 1986
Supply
coalition of groups from five cities. They came to Ottawa, met with the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) and with the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne). They wanted to try to bring the Government to its senses and so they presented some valid information, such as the fact that 14,000 jobs for youth in the non-profit sector were at risk and that thousands of Canadians will lose day care, counselling and other services.
Let me digress for a moment, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that the Minister of State for Youth has left the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


David Orlikow: I wish she were here-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


David Orlikow: Let me read a couple of paragraphs from an article which appeared in the Montreal Gazette on Tuesday of this week. It reads:
One hundred mentally retarded youths in Montreal won't go to camp this summer because the federal Government has decided to give more job-creation grants to businesses and less money to non-profit community organizations.
The Montreal Association for the Mentally Retarded, Spera drug rehabilitation program, the Cote des Neiges Black Community Association, the Salvation Army and about 100 other Montreal charities and community services are among the victims of Employment and Immigration Canada's decision to cut $36 million from its job-creation program for students.
The non-profit agencies hired students to run day camps, counsel drug addicts or care for the elderly, and received full wage subsidies from Ottawa, under the Summer Employment Experience Development Program.
Those programs are not being funded this year. I would challenge the Minister of State for Youth or the Hon. Member for Dollard (Mr. Weiner) who participated in this debate to go to Montreal to meet people from the 100 groups who are not getting funded and give them examples of the programs that were funded in the private sector which were more socially useful or more practical-I see the Hon. Member for Dollard coming into the Chamber.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: I didn't miss a word you were saying.


David Orlikow: That is wonderful. I challenge the Member to meet with these 100 community groups in his city and explain to them how the projects in the private sector which the Government funded are more worth-while than the programs that were cut off. I am sure the Member for Dollard will not do it. He does not have the courage to meet those people and explain the Government's program.
What happened when this committee, representing the Save Our Summer Coalition, saw the Ministers? They got very little thanks for their efforts. They were told by the Minister that she held out "no hope whatsoever that there was any chance of doing anything for the summer". This was despite her own departmental evaluation of Challenge '85 which found that the non-private sector was more successful than private sector firms in generating jobs and in generating career related jobs for students.
Having given an example from Montreal, let me talk for a few moments about my own City of Winnipeg. We have in the core area of Winnipeg a very large number of native people and a very large number of single parent families. Estimates done in the last year or two in that area tell us that there is close to 50 per cent unemployment. Yet in Manitoba the summer job-creation funds were cut from $5.5 million to $4 million, or a cut of 27 per cent, this year. Not only that, but a greater share of the funds will go to the private sector. In addition, money that was to be spent on job development funding was not spent in that way and was earmarked for projects of the Fisheries Department.
Many proposals were made by the public non-profit community organization which had done, is doing and wants to continue to do very essential useful work. Let me put on the record some of the proposals that were turned down: the North End Women's Centre. This Centre wanted to implement a program to retrain women prostitutes and former prison inmates into community workers; the BLAST child care centre wanted a program to train community persons for child care work; Pritchard Place, a program to train staff for the young people's drop-in centre; the Manitoba Child Care Association, a program to train workers for child care centres in 20 communities; Rossbrook House, an example of which any city could be proud and which any city could emulate with great benefit-if the Member on the other side wants to speak, let him speak on his own time. Rossbrook House was a program to train three youth Outreach workers; The Victoria-Albert Parents Council, a program to train local people to be language instructors, in an area with a large number of immigrants from many countries; the native KLAN, an organization which has been successful in helping native people who have been in prison to get back in the work stream, and which wanted a program to hire former prison inmates to work on redeveloping the river bank areas; the Lions Club, which had a management program service to train workers to work with the elderly in geriatric programs. The Lions Club has done a fantastic job in building housing for seniors. All of these programs were turned down.
I think no fair-minded person could say that those projects-and they are just a few of the kind of projects which were turned down-were not worth-while and could not have brought benefit to a part of the City of Winnipeg which needs all the help it can get. Yet a few weeks ago, when a meeting was called at Rossbrook House to discuss the problems which these organizations were having with funding, the Government was conspicuous by its absence. I was there. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) sent someone to represent him. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) was invited. He said he could not be there but he would send somebody. Nobody came with authority to speak for the Government.
If the Government wants to stand on its record, the public has a right to know what the record is. I called the people in charge of the programs for the employment department in
May 28, 1986

Winnipeg. I gave them a list of detailed questions that I would like answered so we could really see what was going on. I was promised answers, Mr. Speaker, but of course I did not get them. I asked for a list of all the job entry projects, for the names of all the training co-ordinators for each project, both individuals and companies. I asked for the number of trainees and occupational areas covered by each project and for the extent to which each project relies on an existing source of training to accomplish the delivery. I asked for the process of approval used for each project, including who approved them and what Government Departments, federal, provincial, or municipal, were represented when the proposals were approved. I asked what the process was for evaluation to see whether there would be jobs after the project finished. I also asked for itemized costs for each project. I could not get that information.
Let us look at a couple of the private sector projects which were approved. Jorge Management got $158,000 to train 25 people for the retail sector over 36 weeks. Twenty of those people now work at The Bay. Surely the Government and the people of Canada do not have to susidize Roy Thomson. Surely The Bay can manage on its own. The Bay made no commitment that there would be permanent jobs for these people. There is a revolution going on in the retail sector with more and more part-time people being hired and fewer and fewer full-time people working. That $158,000 did not cover the training allowances. As far as I can tell, it went to the promoter for setting up the job.
The Principal Group is receiving $128,000 to train 20 people over 20 weeks for the hospitality sector. These would be housekeepers, bartenders, maintenance, and front office workers. Do we know whether there will be jobs for these people when they finish? Will the jobs be at adequate wages or the minimum wage? Does the industry not provide its own training in these jobs, particularly in association with schools and community colleges? Of course it does. In short, why should we fund those types of projects and cut back on community projects? These are valid questions which have been raised by me and people in the dozens of organizations in the core area in Winnipeg.
The Fair Action for Community Employment group in Winnipeg has asked a number of related questions regarding Challenge '86 and the Jobs Strategy Programs. They have made seven demands of the Government in terms of the two programs, and they deserve answers. I want to put their requests on the record. They demand a complete list of those who applied and those who received approval for funding in the year ending March 31, 1986. They want to know what amount these approved programs received. They ask that all future applications for funding be reviewed and assessed on individual merit, rather than being grouped together. They ask for the re-establishment of the Ministerial Advisory Committee comprised of community and government representatives to be formulated to review, assess and approve all future
Supply
applications. They ask that 75 per cent of the total allocations under the Canada Jobs Strategy be designated for non-profit organizations to employ the disadvantaged, native, youth and women. They ask that the $1.5 million that was cut from the Challenge '86 budget for Manitoba youth be reinstated. They want to know how Challenge '86 is going to address the increased student unemployment when Manitoba youth will receive $1.5 million less than last year.
Members of the House can readily see that these community agencies are very angry with the way in which these programs are working. There is profound doubt that these programs are functioning to help those who need help the most. That is why our Party has proposed the motion under consideration today and why we condemn the Government for the way it has been handling the problem of youth unemployment. As was pointed out on The Journal last night, to which the Minister referred, we still have 16.8 per cent unemployment among young people. That figure is unacceptable to me and should be unacceptable to any Government in the country at this time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments, debate. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, before I start my speech, could you ask the Hon. Member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Valcourt) whether he wouldn't mind barking outside? This is supposed to be a place for civilized people. And the same goes for our Small Business Minister over there. Now that is cleared up... . This is for grown ups. Let the kids play outside so we can get on with our business.
Mr. Speaker, I think the motion moved by the Member of the New Democratic Party is correct in saying that the House condemns this Conservative Government for its management of the Challenge 86 project for young people. First of all, I must say quite frankly that when I asked the Minister, who unfortunately has cleared out, and that was a wise decision, Mr. Speaker, because she would be ashamed-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is an experienced parliamentarian and knows perfectly well that one does not refer to a Member's absence. The Hon. Member may proceed.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's answer just now was not true! In my own riding, I am ready to back the word of the project officer in whom I have a lot more confidence than the Minister, against what the Minister said, namely that 40 per cent of the funding allocated in the riding of Montreal- Sainte-Marie and all other Montreal ridings was reserved for the private sector, and that if the Member did not want a given company or business to participate, the funds were to be allocated to other private sector businesses, which is the first false statement!

May 28, 1986
Supply
Second, Aqua Parc at La Ronde is a company that would have created jobs anyway, without Government assistance. It is not because of any disagreement between the officer and myself. We provided assistance to this company. But what I would like to know is about the "godfathers" in this party. We had a "godfather" who took care of another region. Which "godfather" recommended allocating $22,000 in extra funding? And I wish the Conservative Members would explain why being in charge of a pump or a pool at Aqua Parc is more interesting than working at Notre-Dame Hospital helping patients. Why did the Minister prefer that? Why did the Minister prefer, without consultations-and I have the impression that Conservative Members were personally involved in other ridings as in other sectors-why did she give preference to someone who will be responsible for security or sell hot dogs at La Ronde instead of giving this to a home for the handicapped, Lucie-Bruno, or rather to the FTQ which applied for research grants? Why? And I am talking about my own riding only, for I am sure that if we dig a little deeper we will find the truth, just as we found the truth today, and the Minister of State (Small Businesses) will realize that in the case of Mr. Saunders. I am convinced that the truth about this will come out sooner or later. I think the Minister would be well advised to set the record straight at the earliest opportunity before looking even worse than she does now.
This is not the first time, Mr. Speaker, and when I see the Minister giving the example of a mother who retrained through this project, I have to say that this program has been in existence for 10 or 12 years and has helped people gain practical experience. The Minister did not invent anything, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: Neither did you.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, it is due to the whole community, not to the lesser Minister of State (Small Businesses) who has not invented anything either, he is not even allowed to respond and all he ever does is carry suitcases. But that is something else, I am not talking about the handicapped.
Mr. Speaker, I think the Conservative Members should wake up, for some of the decisions made by the Government are unacceptable although I have nothing against the private sector. Perhaps in the riding of Dollard it would have been better to award 60 per cent of the projects to the private sector if they were to create good jobs. It is unthinkable that people should have been forced to accept 40 per cent of projects in funeral parlors in my riding. These jobs will be created in barbecue restaurants, and this is what you call promising jobs! Yet, there are specialized jobs in the community sector for the Quebec Cancer Society, in the important area of research, which the Government has refused to finance.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that Hon. Members should think this thing over. There is in my own riding the Quebec association of retirees and pre-retirees which is fighting for the people who have been arbitrarily denied unemployment insurance eligibility; this association too was in need of young university
students to do some researching in the area of garanteed minimum income computation. It saw its funding cut and its money go to the private sector at the Aqua Park level. Someone will try to convince me that an employee who digs holes for Gaz Metropolitain is more important than an employee who will carry out scientific research for a non-profit organization.
The program is there to train and help train young people, all young people without distinction. We have young people by the hundreds who are learning the techniques of organized recreational activities. They are excluded because of the conservative caucus which has decided to fund only profiteers. We have also young people studying the social sciences who are excluded because of the Conservative party which is looking after its friends. There are in my own riding thousands upon thousands of young men and women getting trained in hairdressing, upholstering, cabinetmaking, bookbinding, etc. Every year, the Montreal Catholic School Board, the people in charge of the polyvalent school, the parents' committee made it possible for young graduates to gain practical experience in their own trades. This year, fewer young people will benefit from such training because the Conservative Government has decided to help instead its friends in the private sector to hire people who will serve hot dogs, sell tickets and act as security guards.
Mr. Speaker, in the past, every Member of Parliament had a say in the selection of projects for his constituency.


Some Hon. Members:: Ah, ah!


Jean-Claude Malépart: The Minister has just said so. Every Member had a say. When I see... Mr. Speaker, the Conservative dummies are waking up! Ah, ah! The Minister has just said that every Member had some input. I understand why the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDnald) cannot trust the 58 Conservative Members from Quebec in view of everything that has happened. I understand why the Minister of Employment and Immigration cannot trust her colleagues. We have seen in the past that she cannot even trust them to select community projects because she does not know what will happen next.
Who pays for all the mistakes and blunders made by the Conservative Government? Our young people do! Our young people attending university to study various subjects, such as recreational activities, social animation and health services. These people are left out because this Government has decided to help its friends in the private sector.
Many young people are being penalized because of the incompetence and lack of direction of this Government. It is all very well for the Minister to make speeches. She was well known as a soap star when she played the role of Donalda in Seraphin, but her role here is worthless. Her only duty to young Canadians is to cut ribbons, and even this she does badly.
May 28, 1986

The Minister speaks about the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe, but I was there to look at the case of the people who took early retirement, and I can tell you that things are not going too well in her constituency and that the people want to see her!
Mr. Speaker, I would like the Conservative Members to explain why there is more glory in working for an architectural firm than in working for the head office of a union doing research on collective agreements or collective bargaining. Why is there more glory in giving a law student a job with a law firm than in finding him work at the head office of a union or a non-profit organization fighting to defend the rights of citizens? Why should these people be put in certain categories when the work is the same? Why is it better to employ a student architect in a private office than at a technical ressources group which helps cooperatives at a discount and which does not exploit people as much? What difference is there?
I see the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier). I know that it is to his own financial advantage. That is another Conservative who will soon be involved in a scandal.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh! oh!


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, can you tell me what difference there can be between two law students when the Government decides to favour the one who finds a job in the private sector and reject the one who will work for a non-profit organization or a union? It is the same for the architects. It is the same for young people who study health care in the hospitals. There are many occupations and trades which deserve fair treatment and all students should be treated the same, whatever their subject.
However, once more, as in every other case, whether when deindexing old age security pensions, imposing a tax on medication, deindexing family allowances, or allowing corruption, the Members opposite are concerned only for the rich. They care nothing about the middle classes and the poor.
However, the fact is that the population has had enough of the Conservatives. This is true for the people who took early retirement and who feel badly treated, it is true in Quebec in the case of the shipyards, in Eastern Montreal and in Matane. The people have had enough of the Conservatives. Throughout the country, the people have had enough of this Government and the way it is managing its programs.


Bernard Valcourt: Come to Madawaska-Victoria and you will see how the people greet you!


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the smart guy opposite does not have enough courage to rise. He is hiding. If he can get up and invite me, I shall go to his constituency, Mr. Speaker. I shall be very happy to meet him for a public debate. However, I know that he will not do it unless he can be sure that only patronage profiteers are in the audience. I will not be there, because I do not mix with these people.
Supply
Mr. Speaker, our young people's future is much too serious to allow ourselves to be distracted by clowns like the Hon. Member for Victoria-


Bernard Valcourt: Madawaska-Victoria.


Jean-Claude Malépart: There are a number of young people who came to Ottawa to see the Minister to be sure to get a job, not only to gain experience, but to continue their education. When I see members of the Conservative party like the one who is shouting now trying to ridicule these young people, Mr. Speaker, I feel it is an insult our young people will certainly not forget.
Mr. Speaker, let me continue with my comparison. We see in the projects for Sainte-Marie alone-I am sure that if we take projects from all the ridings-


Bernard Valcourt: Compare that with the Liberals in 1984!


Jean-Claude Malépart: -we will see the difference, Mr. Speaker. Why is it preferable to grant projects and create jobs working for the Gaz Metropolitain company rather than for the Quebec Cancer Society? Why is it preferable to support companies in La Ronde, Aqua Park, rather than to support the Lucie-Bruneau shelter which looks after handicapped people or the Notre-Dame Hospital which takes care of the aged? Why grant a project to the private sector and on the basis of what criteria of social justice have these same Conservatives decided to grant money to the Victoria Precision company rather than to a social organization looking after the senior citizens of the whole Sainte Marie riding? Why are these people, and I can see them-the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne), the hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent)- so delighted to see that these people have no jobs and that the jobs all go to the private sector, Mr. Speaker? Its scandalous to see the attitude and behaviour of these Hon. Members.
I should like these people to tell me why it is preferable to create a job for someone in the private sector rather than for a young man who will work in recreational activities organization-


Mr. Lanthier:: What is the use of a young person involved in recreational activities?


Jean-Claude Malépart: The Hon. member for LaSalle (M. Lanthier) would like to know what is the use of a young person involved in recreation ... Mr. Speaker, it's a scandal!


Claude Lanthier: You have never earned a living, so you do not know what it means to work.


Jean-Claude Malépart: He is sincere. Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for LaSalle-it is important to record this-wants to exclude all young students involved in physical education, community leadership and recreational organization. I will make sure that his LaSalle constituents know of the stand taken by their insignificant Member: he will not be there long.

May 28, 1986
Supply
What are those young people doing as recreational leaders? In youth centres, besides being involved in sports, in recreational and cultural activities, in order to prevent delinquency? It is my feeling the Hon. Member for LaSalle would rather send everybody into the army, have everyone work for a dollar while he fills his pockets. That is Tory philosophy.
Mr. Speaker, there are co-operative housing organizations in the constituency of Sainte-Marie, and even in neighbouring constituencies. I heard a Conservative Member brag about the Government's policy in the area of co-operative housing. But why brag about it, if he condemns the people who are involved in that. What a shame!
Again, Mr. Speaker, daycare centres are not important for those Conservative Members. Cuts were made there also. Training for that kind of work is provided in the class-room. Why prevent those boys and girls who are studying in those areas from getting employment to acquire job experience? I appreciate this may be politically less rewarding, but why deprive them?
There are youth centres, humanitarian centres, centres for the aged, the Cancer Institute, the Writers' Union, the labour unions, Mr. Speaker. Labour unions are important in my view. The CNTU, the FTQ. I see I have still one minute to go.
Mr. Speaker, this is important. I appreciate the Hon. Member for Trois-Riviere who says it is too much. I understand he does not want us to tell the truth, because in his constituency he does not tell the truth. I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I was in his constituency for a debate, and people booed his secretary because he was not telling the truth.


Mr. Vincent:: You are telling lies.


Jean-Claude Malépart: I can understand that the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres does not want me to tell the truth here in this House. I can understand that! As my colleague for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) just suggested, I just woke up that flock of sheep, those little snorers.


Claude Lanthier: Louder! Louder!


Jean-Claude Malépart: To conclude, Mr. Speaker, the only time they wake up is when I refer to their scandals and to their patronage. Are they afraid of being caught? See here! Your turn will come. Just you wait and see, you too will hit the headlines.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I hope the Minister for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) will find a way to provide the extra moneys needed to respond to the just and fair applications of people in Sainte-Marie.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before we proceed to the period for questions and comments, I wish to advise the House that since the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has designated this coming Friday as an allotted day, the item
which had been scheduled for Private Members' Business will therefore be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence.
[ Translation]
Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne).


Andrée  Champagne: I think the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) better not say we don't take care of our constituents. First of all, I may remind the Hon. Member that Challenge 86 is a program for students, but I don't think it is up to the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie or any Member of his party to rise in the House and decide what these young people, those who are going to school and those who want a career, what they should do. I think they would be better off staying home and waiting until our young people have made their own decisions. We don't need the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie, and above all we don't need the Liberals, Mr. Speaker, because when they were in power, there was this little Minister for Youth-people don't even remember his name-and he wasn't able to do a thing for our young people.
And as for the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie complaining that we don't give them enough money, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should give some figures. In 1984, the previous Government, his own party, allocated $456,956 to the riding of Montreal-Sainte-Marie, for 231 jobs.


An Hon. Member:: How much?


Andrée  Champagne: Four hundred and fifty-six thousand dollars for 231 jobs. In 1985, Mr. Speaker, we gave him $1,098,352 for 631 jobs. Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie is lying when he tells Canadians we are not helping him. He is getting 140.4 per cent more money-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Champlain to withdraw the terms he knows perfectly well are unparliamentary.


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, first I want to rephrase this. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie did not tell the truth-


David Berger: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


An Hon. Member:: Sit down, my friend!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Hopefully we can proceed with order. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, surely the Member cannot say another word until he withdraws that remark he made, which even he should know is unparliamentary. You ought not to permit him to say anything until he does.
May 28, 1986


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is satisfied that the Hon. Member has withdrawn. I am sure the Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) is also satisfied.


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, may I continue... As the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie was saying, it bothers him, and my other colleague who rose should listen, he should listen to what we are saying, he should see what we are doing because-look at the youth unemployment rate. When the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) tells the Minister to be careful about what she says he tells her: Madam Minister, you should be careful about what you say, you might be the subject of legal action. Considering everything the Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie has been saying, he would be charged with libel if he were to repeat that outside the House. So you should listen more carefully, then you could come and argue with us any time; we will be pleased to accommodate you because we did create more jobs with Challenge 86 than you ever did with Employment 84.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Champlain is jumpy, which proves I touched on a sensitive issue. I know what he would not want me to talk about, so I will not. I know very well, I went to his riding for a debate but unfortunately he and the Member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent) chose to be represented by their secretaries, like brave men, Mr. Speaker.
Still I would like to respond. I thank the Hon. Member for reminding people that I had to be one of the better Members because last year I did manage to get projects worth $1 million. Mr. Speaker, I even warned the Minister that I would get more than anybody else. Unlike the dummy Conservatives, I have experience in the social field and I can tell you that I got more than $2 million for other projects, which makes all my neighbouring Conservative colleagues look like a bunch of dummies. The difference is, I'm honest. The difference is, as I told the Minister: I will not tolerate that in the riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, just because it has an incompetent Conservative Member, that in the riding of Gamelin and the riding of Mercier, young people have fewer jobs because their Members are less competent. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for bringing this up. I announced this in my riding, but it just means they have a Member who works hard. And the difference between me and all the Conservative Members is that people voted for me because I was a hard worker, but you were elected on a wave of Conservatism. They don't even know you, and you are going to be swept away by another wave, this time a wave of Members who know what they are doing.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, earlier in today's debate I put on the record the report which appeared in the Montreal Gazette
Supply
which told the story that 100 community organizations doing essential work in the City of Montreal were not receiving funds this year. I wonder if the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) would be willing to arrange a meeting between representatives of those organizations, the Minister of State for Youth, and the Hon. Member for Dollard so they could meet those people and illustrate the private sector projects which have been funded and which are more beneficial than the projects turned down, such as work with the handicapped, the aged, the sick, and so on. Would the Hon. Member be willing to arrange such a meeting since those Hon. Members do not seem to be able to do so?


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his offer, and I must say that every year in my riding, after every project session on community development or study employment, I organize a meeting of all the sponsors and all the people who have projects in order to discuss-and I should be delighted to meet the Conservative Members in my riding on Monday, June 16.
Furthermore, I am prepared to do what I did when I was working on the Montreal East case, which is to work together with the Conservative Members and get together with all private sector and community project leaders in the Montreal area to arrange for consultation, and I can inform the Hon. Member that various youth groups have come to see us and talk to us, and it happens to be the young people themselves who disagree with the Conservative Government's decision, not their elders. And when we talk about young people, it was not their decision to award contracts to the private sector. I am positive that Aqua Parc would never have had any projects because it would have hired young people in any case, and it would have meant that 22 more young people could have been hired elsewhere.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Cote), for questions or comments.


Mr. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I was in my office where I was listening to the speech made by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart). I thought it was a very sad and very disappointing performance. This week, we have some young Canadians here in Ottawa, from all over Canada. These young people were selected, on the basis of their ability and school marks, for a trip to Ottawa to get first hand experience of how a Government operates. The performance given by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie was atrocious.


An Hon. Member:: Gross!


Clément M. Côté: On television it was even worse. You know, he practically fills the screen with his generous propositions, but when he called-


Jean-Claude Malépart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Hon. Member wants to launch an attack on those members of

May 28, 1986
Supply
our population who are obese like me, I wish he would have the guts to do so publicly and suffer the consequences. If he wants to attack all the fat people in this country-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Clément M. Côté: -I didn't mean it that way. I just wanted to describe what we saw on television, because you know how the camera zeroes in on the Member who has the floor here in the House. I was never my intention to make disparaging remarks. However, Mr. Speaker, calling people all kinds of names, and this goes for Members on this side as well if they should feel like doing so-calling people dummies, miss compoops, profiteers, soap stars, and so on, well, Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie has demonstrated that he could, if you will, make his presence felt, that he could debate and make speeches, but for the sake of all Canadian men and women I would urge him to show more respect for this House. Mr. Speaker, this has degenerated into a shameful spectacle. He said earlier that the Minister of State (Youth) (Mrs. Champagne)-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but I would like to recognize someone else on a comment. So I will give the floor to the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) and ask him to be brief, then I will recognize the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) on a short question or comment.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, to each his own style, his own way of defending cases, his own corpulence. I am like I am, but my reputation is as good as that of the Hon. Member who just spoke. Sad to say, had I not acted as I did to defend the interests of the elderly in the case of old age pensions, these people would no longer be getting fully indexed old age pension cheques. Had I not acted in my own way with respect to people who suffer form diabetes, these people would now be paying a tax on syringes and drugs.
Mr. Speaker, the only people who will pass judgment on my behaviour are my constituents and, at the last election they treated me fair and square and re-elected me.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) for the last question or comment.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger), I think that if you check the Standing Orders you will see that in the question and comment period, the opportunities for questions or comments are to go to Members of Parties other than the person who is speaking unless, of course, no such Hon. Member is rising, then an Hon. Member from the Party of the person who is speaking might be recognized. In this case, there are other Hon. Members from other Parties rising and I see no reason why you should recognize the Hon. Member for Laurier.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The point made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) is well taken. The way the Chair interprets the provisions to which the Hon. Member refers is that preference should be given to Hon. Members other than the one who has spoken. I do not understand that as meaning uniquely. I recognized the first Hon. Member, I believe, from the Progressive Conservative Party, then an Hon. Member from the New Democratic Party, then an Hon. Member from the Progressive Conservative Party. I think it is only fair that the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) should be allowed a brief question.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I am not trying to be difficult, but this has happened before. When two Hon. Members rise-and in this case at least two or three Hon. Members rose to participate in the question and comment period-the Standing Orders say the Chair should prefer Hon. Members of a Party other than that of the Hon. Member who spoke. In this case the Chair preferred to recognize the Hon. Member for Laurier, who is a Member of the Party of the person who was speaking.
I was a party to the drafting of those Standing Orders and to the recommendation, and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the intention was that as long as there were members of Parties other than the Hon. Member who last spoke rising, an Hon. Member from the Party who just spoke ought not to be recognized.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand very well the representations made by the Hon. Member. I would be willing to discuss this matter with him. But it is not the way I understood the Standing Orders. I know the Hon. Member is well versed on procedure and was on the committee. However, for this time I will recognize the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger). I would be willing to discuss this matter with the Hon. Member at some time in the future.


David Berger: Briefly, Mr. Speaker, I should like to support the comments made by my colleagues this afternoon by giving a few examples from my riding.
Last week I met with the young students of a theatre company, students who attend the Ecole nationale de theatre in my riding. They had applied for a $23,000 Government grant representing 35 per cent of the total cost of a project they had prepared to create summer jobs. They were able to get about $12,000 from the private sector. They took the initiative of conavassing hundreds of companies, and very seldom do we see students who can manage to get the private sector to contribute that kind of money. So they were asking the Government not to finance the whole operation but only to give some support to their own efforts and add a little more to the funds they had been able to obtain from private interests. But what happened? The project was not given priority because it did not come from the private sector.
May 28, 1986

I can give you another example briefly, Mr. Speaker. I was personally involved with this case. I called the Minister and I hope that this project can go forward because these young people-


An Hon. Member:: You would have to say so publicly.


David Berger: If this project goes forward, I can assure the Minister of State for Small Businesses that I will say so publicly.


David Berger: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to give just one other quick example. I received a letter from a doctor at the Royal Victoria Hospital which is associated with McGill University. There are five full-time professors who were willing to give their time to train students in clinical research this summer. Last year, five jobs were created under the summer project. This year only two students have been accepted. The doctor wrote the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) saying that this year the need is greater. He asked why this program should be cut back. The doctor urged the Minister to restore the program to last year's level and to give meaning-and I am quoting his words-to the slogan "jobs, jobs, jobs". That is what we are asking the Government to do.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. To conclude, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte Marie.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I think that the comments of my colleague for Laurier (Mr. Berger) clearly show the difference between a Member of Parliament with feelings and sensitivity who defends the interests of his constituency and the heartless Members of Parliament on the side of the Conservatives who are only interested in money.


Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, in the few moments that are left for debate I think I should enlighten some Members opposite with respect to the actions of the Government in terms of Canadian youth.
When Challenge '85 was announced, members of the Opposition said it was just a reformatting of the old Liberal summer employment programs. Today, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) told us that the programs were a step backward. What he fails to see, and he was partly responsible for it, is that these programs are different. They are designed with the primary emphasis on student training and employment needs. That is the significant difference. Throughout the debates we have had on this subject over the last year I have found that Members opposite have had a great deal of difficulty understanding where our Government is coming from and how much benefit Canadian youth are deriving from its action. I think it is incumbent upon
Supply
me to inform Members opposite how significant these changes are and just what they mean.
There were a great many comments made today with respect to jobs in the private sector being Mickey Mouse jobs. It has been said that we have been depriving the non-profit sector of opportunities which are far better for young people.


David Berger: Let the Hon. Member tell us what is wrong with hospitals.


Terrence (Terry) Clifford: There is absolutely nothing wrong with hospitals. Nor is there anything wrong with veterinarians, dentists or engineers. There is nothing wrong with a great many jobs in the private sector.
I would like to say that there are two other programs with which Members opposite do not seem to be familiar. They must understand that these things work in concert. I refer to the Innovations Program. Today, the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) said that there are some good things in the Canadian Jobs Strategy. We must remember that he was the fellow who moved the motion. He then said that he did not know what the Innovations Program is. I would like to tell the Hon. Member that it is a very vital program to young Canadians-all Canadians. I would also like to point out to him that tomorrow the Self-help Centre for Canadian Youth will be opened in London, Ontario. The Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) have encouraged and developed this innovation which will help Canadian youth. It is something which will be shared by all Canadians since it will be available to all constituencies.
Something else that Members opposiite really seem not to understand is that the Government is helping the non-profit sector. It is doing so through something called co-operative education. I think there is a tremendous lack of knowledge on the opposite side of the House with respect to this programming. It is something behind which our Government has stood. It has financed it and made a commitment to it for the next four years. Many schools, hospitals, universities and community colleges have taken advantage of this type of programming. The financing helps students obtain job experience while they are still in school. Most of these experiences are in the non-profit sector. They are opportunities nine months of the year by which young people learn about the real world of work in a particular sector. Members opposite fail to recognize how this program is part of the whole picture. Thus Challenge '86 is just one major focus we have in place to assist young people. It is not the only one, but it is a major one. Hon. Members must remember that it is working in concert with other programs.
I would now like to deal with another major issue which has been kicked around a bit today. The Government is definitely saying that since most students will work in the private sector after completing their educations, private sector employers are being asked to participate in the program. How can one obtain

May 28, 1986
Supply
real life experiences if one is not given the opportunity when one is young?
It has been said today that there are unfair subsidies in the private sector. It has been asked why jobs should be offered through Challenge '86 to the private sector anyway. I ask Hon. Members to take a good look at this. Once again, I think we have under-estimated the energy and commitment it takes from the private sector in order to become involved. Many private sector corporations and businesses do not want to particpate at a certain point in time because they cannot. They realize it takes a real commitment to take on young people through programs such as Challenge '86. It takes time, and time means money. Because it costs money to become involved, in certain cycles of their growth they are not able to do so, while others are.
Rather than being negative about the private sector, Members opposite should be encouraging it to make such a commitment. Members of the Opposition should realize it takes time and money for these small businesses, and even big businesses, to become involved in this commitment to the young people of Canada. They should be applauding these measures as opposed to being so negative. I think this is a point which should be driven home again and again.
I ask Hon. Members to do what I have done. I have talked to small businessmen in my riding. Members of the NDP have told us that they are very interested in the world of work in terms of small business. I ask those Members to talk to people involved in small businesses in their ridings to find out just how much commitment it takes for a small-businessman to get involved in a program such as Challenge '86. When they find out just how much time and energy it takes, they will find out what I have found out. That is to say that even though there is a heavy commitment to time, over 80 per cent of the small businesses in London-Middlesex want to come forward and serve the youth of Canada.
When one considers the results, one sees that they are not so overpowering. It will be seen that in 1986 some 34.6 per cent of the funds are approved for the private sector, while 65.4 per cent are approved for the non-profit sector. There seemed to be a great deal of criticism going on today that is completely
unfounded. Members opposite are saying that we are placing all the money in the private sector. We are not. We realize that future jobs will come from this sector. I point out to Hon. Members that the majority of the rebuilding and economic renewal which is going on, to which we made a commitment in 1984, has been in the small business sector. The future for the rest of the 1980s and the early 1990s will certainly be in that sector again. So to give these young people an opportunity to work while they are learning in school and while they are training and then to progress into full-time jobs in the small business sector seems only appropriate. It seems that it is the right thing for the Government to do. Rather than being so negative about it we should be applauding the Government.
This is a great opportunity for me to be able to speak out on behalf of the Government today and the young people of Canada. I know that they have been all over Canada. They are asking the Government to move ahead. They cannot help but applaud our record to date with over 600,000 jobs having been created. They see that there has been a decrease in the percentage of youth unemployment from 18 per cent, which is what the figure was before we took office in 1984. They can see the figure decreasing, and they are very encouraged by our movements. I know that my study, which shows that the private sector wants to be involved, is matched by the enthusiasm of the applications of students from all over London and the surrounding area to be a part of it. We know that we are on the right track. So it is a pleasure to be able to say no to this motion today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 6 o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 82 (12), the proceedings on the motion have expired.

This House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, May 29, 1986