1986-06-10

Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8) I have the honour to table in both official languages the Government responses to three petitions, Nos. 331-484, 331485 and 331-491.
* *
*


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Legislative Committee I have the honour to present the report of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977, reported without amendment.


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition, duly certified, signed by many residents of Willowdale who are voicing their opposition against any liberalization of availability and distribution in Canada of any pornographic material as envisioned by the report of the special committee on pornography and prostitution.


John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition, duly certified, signed by many residents of Willowdale who want Section 251 of the Criminal Code to be enforced thereby preventing the Morgentaler Clinic in Toronto from performing any more unlawful abortions.


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege to present a petition signed by almost
3,000	persons from the City of St. Catharines and its surrounding district requesting Parliament to amend the Young Offenders Act. The amendments would include those of exposing the identity of the offender to the victims of violent and sexual crimes. All of these amendments are designed to protect the victims of assault and the public at large.
* *
*
* *
*


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: It is my
pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Kamloops-Shuswap who are still concerned about the Minister of Employment and Immigration's announcement last December that they will have their pension benefits deducted from their unemployment insurance benefits, thus effectively eliminating the benefit to the worker of the pension package. They are calling upon the Government to ensure that all retired employees keep their pension benefits and receive their unemployment insurance benefits without the deduction of pension income.



CRIMINAL CODE AND CANADA EVIDENCE ACT


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-113, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
June 10, 1986
Motions


John Carnell Crosbie: for leave to introduce Bill C-114, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs Tariff.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 84(2), I would ask that you designate an Order of the Day for consideration of Ways and Means Motion No. 45 to amend the Customs Tariff laid upon the table on Monday, June 2,1986.

[ Translation]



QUESTION ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 463.

CANADA POST CORPORATION-PRIORITY CONSTRUCTION LIST Question No 463-Mr. Corbett:
1.	Is the Town of Quispamsis located on the priority construction list of the Canada Post Corporation and, if so (a) where is it on the list (i) when will construction of the Quispamsis facility begin?
2.	What other communities have a higher priority and, in each case, what is the population expected to be served by the ancitipated facilities?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: The Canada Post Corporation informs me as follows:
1.	The current facilities construction plan contains a project for Rothesay-Quispamsis, N.B. The Rothesay-Quispamsis project is presently scheduled to start in 1987-88 with completion in 1988-89.
The facilities plan is continually being updated and is formally reviewed on an annual basis as part of the long range planning process. It is now under review as part of the
aforementioned process, which may result in a change to the schedule.
2.	Communities on the facilities construction plan with a higher priority are:
Yellowknife, N.W.T.	Population 9,000
Gander, Nfid.	10,400
Dawson Creek, B.C.	11,400
Barrie, Ont.	38,500
Yorkton, Sask.	15,350
Grand Prairie, Alta.	24,275


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (mo)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Speaker:: Before putting the motion in the name of the Hon. President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), since today is the final allotted day, the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the said Supply Bill. In view of recent practices, do Hon. Members agree that the Supply Bill be distributed now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board) moved:: That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987, laid upon the Table, Thursday, February 27, 1986, less the amounts voted in Interim Supply, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed,


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak today in the debate on the Main Estimates for the year 1986-87. Hon. Members will recall that on February 27, 1986, I tabled the Main Estimates for the current year which amount to $107 billion. On that occasion, I advised the House that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) had announced the
June 10, 1986

day before, in his Budget, that there would be an additional expenditure cutback of $500 million which was not included in the Estimates. For several months Treasury Board has been working diligently with the various departments in order to identify the parameters of this cutback. Although a number of areas have yet to be examined and a number of details must still be worked out, much of the work has been completed, and I can assure Hon. Members that details of this cutback will be available very shorty.
With the $500 million expenditure cutback, the growth rate of our projected expenditures decreases to 3.9 per cent, the lowest rate recorded in 24 years.
Roughly two thirds of the total Main Estimates represents statutory spending, in other words, expenditures made in accordance with existing legislation. The remaining third, $37.5 billion, represents expenditures which Parliament is being asked to vote or authorize. The clearest indication, in the short term, of the Government's firm resolve to reduce spending is the control it exercises over non-statutory expenditures. That is why I was pleased to announce, when tabling the Main Estimates last February, that the rate of growth of these expenditures was virtually zero. Mr. Speaker, if we exclude increases arising from our commitments in the areas of national defence and external aid, our operational costs will decline by 4.2 per cent.
Until quite recently, statutory and non-statutory spending in particular had been increasing quite rapidly. From 1974-75 to 1984-85, the Government's total expenditures increased by an average of 13.4 per cent annually, well above the average inflation rate of 8.8 per cent. As a proportion of the gross national product, federal expenditures have increased from about 15 per cent in 1965 to over 20 per cent in 1975 and to nearly 26 per cent in 1984. In 1984-85, servicing the national debt absorbed 32 per cent of federal revenues and represented 21 per cent of total public spending. This was the situation confronting the Government the day after the election: a deteriorating financial situation despite an apparently improving economy.

To achieve sustainable growth and regain control over expenditures, the Government developed a plan to reduce the real level of Government spending and reverse the upward trend in the federal debt to GNP ratio. It had to establish a sound fiscal policy that would support, rather than hamper, economic renewal and redefine the role of Government in a way that would help improve management and eliminate inefficiencies and obsolete programs.
The Government did not waste time. Within a few months of taking office, I announced a number of measures to reduce by $4.2 billion the federal Government's budgetary and nonbudgetary requirements for the 1985-86 fiscal year. In deciding where to reduce expenditures, the Government followed a principle of equity which would guard against shifting the burden to the poor or the under-privileged in our
Supply
society and which would balance the impact among the various regions of the country and sectors of the economy. This was an important first step by a new Government to streamline operations and reduce expenditures. Virtually every Department was affected by the expenditure and program review.
Controlling expenditures is not an easy task but it is one to which this Government was and continues to be firmly committed. The results are in. The Government has clearly regained firm control over federal expenditures. Although the detailed accounts have not been finalized, all indications are that actual program expenditures for 1985-86, that is, total Government spending excluding public debt charges, went down. This is the first decline in Government program expenditures in the post-war period.
In order to achieve its goals, the Government could not be satisfied with merely applying general measures of restraint to its programs. It had to examine the very raison d'etre of many of these programs and eliminate waste and duplication. The Government, therefore, set up a ministerial task force on program review under the chairmanship of my colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), to examine specific programs, identify areas of overlap and opportunities for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of Government programs. Private sector volunteers worked closely with public servants in 19 study teams to examine virtually all government programs.
We have already benefited greatly from the work of the ministerial task force on program review. As Members know, this resulted in a number of recommendations which continue to form the basis for program reductions. Some duplication has already been eliminated, some operations have already been streamlined, and meaningful savings have already been achieved.
The Government is committed also to further improving the management of its operations. A number of changes have been implemented recently to improve the management of the Government's assets. I would like to touch briefly on some of the most important ones.
First, a ministerial task force on privatization has been created, chaired by myself, as President of the Treasury Board, to review systematically the potential for privatization of Crown corporations or changes to their status to more suitably reflect public policy objectives. Unless there is a compelling public policy purpose to retain a given Crown corporation, it will be put on the market or it will be wound up.

A number of corporations such as Loto Canada, Canagrex and the Canada Museums Construction Corporation are being phased out or have already disappeared. The Northern Transportation Company Limited was sold last July for $27 million, followed in August by the sale of the Canada Development Corporation, resulting in revenues amounting to $132 million, with another $132 million to follow within twelve months.

June 10, 1986
Supply
More recently, de Havilland Limited was sold to Boeing for $155 million and Canadian Arsenals was sold to the SNC Group for $92.2 million. Thanks to this policy, we have handed over to the private sector activities for which it is better suited.
As I have already indicated on several occasions, Mr. Speaker, privatization will be done with discernment and care. There will be no fire sales. The Government intends to get a fair return for what it sells. It is also quite aware of the needs of the management and staff of those corporations. When Canadian Arsenals was sold, for instance, we signed a reciprocity agreement with the buyer to make sure that the employees' pension rights would be protected.
As well, the Government takes into consideration the impact of these sales on consumers and provincial Governments. This is why the Northern Transportation Company was sold to a buyer who is committed to maintain services in northern communities.
Second, innovative measures have been taken to improve the management of federal real estate, including:
1.	An over-all action plan aimed at disposing of surplus or little-used real estate; real estate up for sale in 1985-86 was valued at about $200 million, and revenues from this source in 1986-87 will amount to $247 million;
2.	The decision-making process was separated from the operational process, with resulting changes in the mandates of the Treasury Board and Public Works Canada;
3.	A new real estate management office was established and responsibilities related to real estate were redefined.
Third, the Government has also taken a more productive approach concerning the management of public funds, which made it possible to save money thanks to this new approach:
First, the Government pays its suppliers at the right moment, neither too early so as no to lose accruing interests nor too late so it would have to pay interests. In addition, we resort to travelers' cheques, credit cards and payments by electronic facilities whenever it is to our advantage;
Second, the Government has been attempting to reduce amounts owed to the Crown, thanks to more effective recovery methods;
Finally, the Government uses various mechanisms for deposits, transfers-including electronic transfers-and bank accounts consolidation.
We have imposed severe restraints with respect to person-years, the unit used to measure and control the size of the public service. The Government believes that its essential services can be maintained at reduced costs, thanks in part to downsizing the public service.
We have already begun to implement a five-year program to reduce the size of the Public Service. The Estimates I tabled
on February 27 show a reduction of some 5,500 person years, or 2.1 per cent from the previous year. This alone will save $150 million in 1986-87. Over the next four years a further 1 per cent reduction per year will be implemented so that by 1990-1991 the person year reduction will total 15,000. The accumulated savings to the taxpayers will be $1.5 billion with recurring annual savings of approximately $500 million.
The reduction in the size of the Public Service is being achieved in a humane and orderly manner, thanks to the improved Work Force Adjustment Policy which this Government implemented a year ago. The policy states that employees whose jobs are no longer required will, as far as possible, be redeployed within the Public Service with retraining, if necessary. Briefly, major improvements made last year to the policy include, first, that the minimum notice to an employee whose job is being abolished was increased from three months to four months, although departments endeavour to give at least six months' notice. Laid-off persons are now eligible for retraining and those accepting lower level positions are provided with up to one year's salary protection. The Work Force Adjustment Policy is among the best, if not the best, being offered by major employers in Canada today.
In order to build upon this policy, I announced at the beginning of last February a staffing freeze in the Public Service. In a sense, the freeze can be viewed as a bit of shock therapy. I wanted departments to sit up and take notice of the situation. I wanted them to fully understand the fundamental change which was taking place. I wanted their full cooperation in applying the Work Force Adjustment Policy. At the end of May, after reviewing the situation, I became convinced that the continuing efforts being made to place affected employees were not in jeopardy. As a result, I lifted the freeze.
Our rate of success in managing the reduction in the size of the Public Service has been very encouraging. Of the 5,200 employees affected this year, about 3,500 have been, or will be, offered another job either in their own department, in another department or in the private sector. I am confident that the actual number of lay-offs in this reduction exercise will be no higher than 500 by the end of 1986-87. Should circumstances change, I will take the necessary steps to ensure that the number of lay-offs does not exceed these projections.
Improving the Work Force Adjustment Policy is but one of the many improvements we have brought to the management of human resources in the Public Service. Other improvements include: first, a comprehensive framework has been introduced for human resource planning which integrates management of this vital resource with the planning and management of programs and expenditures. Second, Treasury Board has negotiated a master agreement with the Professional Institute of the Public Service. As far as the negotiation of a master agreement with the Public Service Alliance of Canada is concerned, a binding conciliation board has been established and I expect proceedings will begin this month. Third, a voluntary early retirement program was implemented for
June 10, 1986

senior officials. This initiative enabled 535 senior public servants to retire. The program was designed not only to help resolve a serious problem resulting from reduced turnover among the higher ranks by opening up new career opportunities for talented public service managers, but to produce payroll savings, since about half of the vacated positions are being eliminated. Fourth, a new productivity bonus system will be introduced to further encourage efficient and cost-effective management in the federal public sector. The bonus will apply for the 1986-87 fiscal year. It will be based on performance, more specifically on savings achieved while respecting objectives related to such things as affirmative action, safety, security and so forth. Fifth, various new initiatives have been implemented to promote employment equity in the Public Service and in Crown corporations for women, aboriginal peoples, disabled persons, visible minorities, to improve access to federal facilities for the disabled and generally to improve the working conditions for public sector employees.

Other improvements have been made concerning management, and these have contributed to lower costs, increased revenues, and a more manageable Government apparatus. I will mention only three, Mr. Speaker.
First, the general costs of departments and organizations have been reduced and a stricter control has been imposed on future growth in this sector so as to boost productivity and improve management even more.
Second, strict new measures for examining potential loan guarantees have been implemented so as to minimize the risk of Government losses as a result of payment defaults and to share risks more equitably with private sector interests.
Third, the Government is actively considering cost recovery options to reduce the spending tendency and to distribute more equitably among the direct beneficiaries and taxpayers in general the burden of providing public goods and services.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the 1986-87 Main Estimates being considered today are the result of eighteen months of serious Financial planing. An efficient administration, rationalized operations and substantial savings, such are the results obtained to date, all of which reflects a radical change compared with the previous decade. As our resources are scarce, we have to use them wisely. We have to try to spend less and better.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) and to tell him immediately that we are all for an efficient and effective Public Service. We are also all in favour of a more efficient program to get better value for our tax dollars.
The Minister has announced a new policy of his Government to grant a productivity premium to non-unionized management
Supply
workers. He will recall that I have already asked him in this House what criteria would apply to the administration of this program and why it is that managers can get a productivity premium when, in fact, the public servants themselves are the ones who produce. I asked the Minister a while ago to tell us what the criteria would be, but he has not done so. I wonder whether, today, since this is the last day of supply, he could tell the House what criteria will be used under the management premium program.	>
Could he give us a few examples and also maybe tell us why this money, which will be used as a sort of management incentive to improve to the effectiveness of Government programs, was not redistributed in the pay cheques, for instance, to encourage all employees to be more productive? Why create a climate which is not quite healthy by providing a productivity premium to Public Service managers since, at least according to my own research, no other Government, except perhaps in some American state, has a productivity premium? Would he give us further details on the criteria and applicability of the program and would he also tell us why he decided on a management premium instead of redistributing all this money as employee incentives?


Robert René de Cotret: When the Budget was brought down, a productivity bonus for managers was announced that would promote and reward efficiency and increase productivity within the Public Service.
I am now being asked about criteria. The criteria for this bonus, further details are to be released very shorthly-consist essentially in rewarding performance beyond that normally expected of managers in the Public Service. The point has just been raised that this is an unhealthy practice, but I would simply like to point out to the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) that it is a practice that may be found in almost all large companies in the private sector, a practice which I think has produced good results. And in line with the present Government's managerial approach which is aimed at introducing management forms similar to those in the private sector-I already mentioned cash management which has meant savings of hundreds of millions of dollars by introducing systems copied from the private sector ... In the same vein, I am confident that the incentive for efficiency provided by this bonus will produce the expected results.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have a short supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Minister said: We will have the criteria in a few days, this Department's Main Estimates are now before the House, and the debate is supposed to end today. Why doesn't the Minister promise the House that today, this afternoon or at some time between now and 10 o'clock this evening, he will come to the House and explain what these criteria are? How does he expect us to adopt a new program sight unseen, as it were? I must admit, I don't know whether the Minister understands my question, but since it is a completely new program in the public sector ... In the private sector, it works because of the profit incentive-the more you sell the more you get-but in

June 10, 1986
Supply
the public sector, service is what counts. So I my question to the Minister is: Why doesn't he come to the House and tell us before the end of the day's, proceedings how this is going to work?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that the specific details of the program have not been determined, so I cannot give them. They still have to be worked out, but a lot has been done already. This is a new program that we intend to table in the House as soon as it is ready to be tabled.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in a sense my question to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) is supplementary to those asked by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). I am concerned about the trend we see coming from the Minister. In the private sector it is fairly easy to measure performance in order to reward it. It is based on whether one's department is more productive than others in terms of profits, or whether it is generating more revenue, sales or whatever. What I am hearing more and more, and this is what concerns me, is that the Government seems to be running Canada as if it were General Motors or the Royal Bank of Canada.


Mr. de Corneille:: It's not that good.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Does he see running a Government as being quite different from running a private corporation? What are the distinguishing differences?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of very important distinguishing factors. Obviously, we in the public sector have great concern for the safety and security of the public in terms of services. We run a number of programs which are socially oriented. From this point of view I will be the first to admit that Government is very different from the private sector. However, in terms of management practices, while we do not have many profit centres, we do have a great number of cost centres.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Should we?


Robert René de Cotret: The cost centres can be managed by using sound management principles that have been proven to be successful in the private sector. When the Hon. Member says that we seem to want to run the Government of Canada, from a management point of view and not a policy point of view, like one would run GM or another large corporation, I say yes, that is true. To date the results have been very encouraging. For the first time in the post-war period we are seeing a decline in the most critical portion of our Government expenditures.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Which is?


Robert René de Cotret: The non-statutory programs.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Is that how you measure success? It's easy to be successful, just lay off half the public servants.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Let us do this orderly, please. The Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway).


Mr. Redway:: Mr. Speaker, I have four questions which I would like to ask the Minister in order to have his comments. The first relates to the Minister's comment that the Public Service will be reduced in numbers. Recently we have received reports that in fact the numbers in the Public Service have gone up rather than down. I would ask the Minister to put an explanation on the record for that.
Second, there are reports that in efforts to reduce the Public Service the four target groups in employment equity are being impacted unfairly, particulary women, disabled, native people and the visible minorities, because their seniority is much less than that of the traditional groups in the Public Service.
Third, I would like the Minister to comment on whether or not the visible minorities were a target group within the Public Service for employment equity prior to September of 1984 when the present Government was elected.
Fourth, I would like the Minister to comment on the electronic transfer of funds, bearing in mind that prior to the election of 1984 our Party, which now forms the Government, took the position that there should be, and there were great savings to be had in the electronic transfer of funds. I believe something in the order of $250 million in savings was estimated at that time. Apparently, there has been no action taken since that time. One of the impressions that I have been given for that is that while there would be a saving to the Government there would be a loss of revenue to the Post Office. That loss of revenue would increase the deficit of the Post Office and there is great resistence from the Post Office on that point.
Will the Minister comment on my four questions, please?


Robert René de Cotret: The first question raised, Mr. Speaker, was with respect to the apparent contradiction in terms of the numbers of public servants. The numbers that were published recently were year-end numbers for the last fiscal year. The reduction program begins in 1986-87. That is one explanation. In other words, because it is dealing with a period in which there was no reduction in person-years it is quite normal to have seen a slight increase.
The other point I would like to make is that some of the numbers that I saw were not consistent with the same data base that we are using. There were data base differences which perhaps can explain some of the increases that were there. The major reason is that we are dealing with last year while the program essentially deals with the forthcoming year.
In terms of employment equity, throughout the process we have first indicated very clearly that Departments should
June 10, 1986

consider very carefully employment equity considerations in the reduction exercise. We mentioned very specifically to the Departments on at least two occasions that affirmative action programs should not be adversely impacted by the person-year reductions.
Finally, throughout this whole piece, we have been monitoring the situation very closely. In terms of the total universe, I will be happy to give Hon. Members exact figures as soon as they are available, but we are tracking that very, very closely.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to inform the Hon. Minister that his time has expired. Questions and comments are terminated.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure the House would agree, on unanimous consent, to let the Minister finish-


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. I recognize the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin).


Alan Redway: The Opposition wants to cut off debate.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: No,
Mr. Speaker, the Opposition wants to engage in debate. If the learned Member who just rose on a point of order wanted to ask another useful question, I would be happy to allow him to ask it, but I am not sure that I would like to allow the Minister more time to provide a non-answer to a very useful question.
In participating in today's debate, I think it would be useful if we were to remind ourselves of what this little official looking Blue Book with the 1986-87 Estimates is all about. Someone sitting in the Chamber listening to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) discuss this document would think he was listening to someone from the lottery corporation comparing the bottom line numbers this year over last year and this year projected against next year. However, that is not what we are talking about. This little, slim, narrow Blue Book-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Do you want a big one?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Here is a slightly bigger one. This Blue Book, a synopsis of the Government's expenditures of $116 billion or $117 billion for fiscal year 1986-87 is about people. It is about Canada. Bound up in these expenditures very sparingly described within this book is what makes this country tick. Bound up in this little binder containing bottom-line numbers is the essence of what Canada is all about and the kind of programs the Government offers to its citizens.
There is no question that Members on all sides of the House would endorse the desire and indeed the responsibility of the Minister to ensure that the Government is fiscally prudent and responsible and to ensure that the taxpayers get their money's worth for government expenditure on their behalf, that
Supply
wherever possible we avoid duplication and that if we can provide a service for fewer dollars, then that kind of initiative ought to be taken. There is no question about any of that, and the Opposition would not question the Minister on any of those objectives. In fact, to the contrary, the Opposition would find itself on its feet rather quickly if the Government and, in particular, this Minister who has been charged with this responsibility were not pursuing those objectives.
When the Minister says that the fiscal position of the Government has improved substantially, as he likes to claim, or has improved marginally during his tenure as President of the Treasury Board, what does he really mean? Has he magically reduced expenditures in some intelligent way? Has he been fiscally responsible? Let us ask ourselves what he really means.
We know that under one program alone, the Established Programs Financing, the Government is cutting back $8 billion from funds that ordinarily would be transferred to the provinces. Has the Government cut out $8 billion worth of waste? Has it identified $8 billion worth of expenditures that need not continue in order to provide Canadians with the level of service to which they have become accustomed? Has the Government found, lying around hidden in the tunnels and corridors of official Ottawa power, $8 billion worth of wasteful employees, expenditures and programs? No, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister is pounding himself on the chest for having transferred $8 billion of debt to the provinces. He took $8 billion of the federal deficit out of his pocket and passed it over to the provincial Governments. Then he rose in the House, pounded his chest and said: "Look how much better the bottom line is". What is the Government's attitude about that? The Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall), appearing before the finance committee, said that provinces are stuck with federal funding cuts.
I expected the Minister to rise today to give us a list of all those insidious, terrible, negative, wasteful programs that he had found during his search for fiscal responsibility and to lay them before the House of Commons and say: "Look what I found, look at these nasty, wasteful programs". However, there was not one single example given by the Minister of such a program. Why? Because he has not identified waste. He has not done his job. He has not avoided duplication. He has transferred a debt for what all Canadians regard as very essential services, health and education, out of federal jurisdiction and onto the backs of provincial Governments.
What does the Minister of State for Finance say about that? She said that we are stuck with those transfers and went on to say that the provinces should not complain too much because the provinces now enjoy the benefits of Canada's strong economic performance. I would like to ask Government Members if they really think that people in the Province of Alberta are dancing about in the cities' public parks and fountains enjoying the benefits of an improved economic performance. Do they believe that in the Province of British Columbia, 4,000 cedar shakes and shingles workers are
COMMONS DEBATES____________ ______June 10, 1986
Supply
dancing about in the spring sunshine celebrating the benefits of an improved economic performance? Do they really believe that in the Province of Newfoundland where the unemployment rate is about 30 per cent that the people have given up their fishing boats to dance in the streets celebrating Ottawa's improved economic performance? Do they believe that in Atlantic Canada where economic growth has gone down and not up that people are celebrating the Government's improved economic performance and are saying to themselves: "Here we are in much better shape to carry the burden on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board"? No, Mr. Speaker.
Surprise of surprises, the people are not dancing in the streets. If they are dancing, they are dancing mad. They understand that the decision made by the Government to load onto the backs of the provinces $8 billion in additional expenditures ordinarily paid by the Government of Canada for health and education will have two results. They understand that there will be a tax increase in the provinces one way or other and they understand that there will be less money available for health and education.
As Canadians-not as Ontarians, not as British Columbians and not as Newfoundlanders but as Canadians-the people understand something else. They understand that we are now setting up health care and education services that will be unevenly applied across the land. The poorest of the provinces like Newfoundland will have the poorest health and education systems and the wealthiest provinces like Ontario will have the best health and education systems. There will be 10 different levels of Canadian citizenship across the country, all in the name of an exercise designed to allow the Minister to rise, pound his chest and say that the bottom line is better. However, he has not moved the bottom line one inch. He has cut back on essential programs and loaded up the provincial debts.
What else has the Government done? This Blue Book is not about numbers, it is about people. The Government has changed the tax system. It brought in the largest tax increase, both through sales taxes and personal incomes taxes, that Canada has seen in decades. Not only did the Government bring in the largest tax increase but it applied it unevenly as well. Those at the lower end of the income scale making $15,000 per year will pay about 35 per cent or 36 per cent more in aggregate taxes over the next four or five years and those at the higher end of the income tax scale who are making a couple of hundred thousand dollars per year are going to pay 2 per cent more in aggregate taxes over the next four or five years. That is another way the Minister has gotten rid of waste. That is more so-called waste which he has cut out, not on the backs of the provinces, but on the backs of Canada's poor citizens. It gets progressively worse as one goes from the top of the income scale to the bottom of it. Therefore, those who can afford it the least are paying the most.
[DOT] <1150)
Here is the Minister's Blue Book within which are contained those people who have been unfairly hit by the administration
and perhaps the largest tax increase in Canadian history. What examples has the Government of Canada provided for those people who are being asked to pay more, those people who can afford it the least? First, it set up the largest Cabinet in Canadian history with 40 Members. Second, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has had a phenomenal increase in his personal staff and office.


Mr. Dick:: No.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Yes, he has. Also a new political animal has been created known as chiefs of staff who get paid from $80,000 to $100,000 per year. That job description heretofore did not exist around this place. We call them the commissars.
What else has the Government done? In recent days we have found out that the Prime Minister has a Hercules aircraft with two trucks loaded aboard it full of video equipment-


Paul Wyatt Dick: As Trudeau did.


Brian Vincent Tobin: As Trudeau did not have. For the benefit of the Hon. Member I will quote Michel Gratton, the Prime Minister's press secretary, who speaks for the Prime Minister. He said: "Recording teams frequently accompany the Prime Minister". He could not say how that compares with what happened under Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and said: "I don't care". Is that not the message the Government of Canada is giving the people of the country? They do not care. They slap on the biggest single tax increase in Canadian history and cut back on essentials which symbolize the common thread that is held dear in every province and every region. I am referring to that measure of Canadian citizenship, that which says no matter where we live or what is our income, some things are common to us, such as access to good medical care and access to a good education. Even the Chief Justice of Canada, perhaps unwisely in retrospect, has spoken out. He expressed the concern that we will produce a generation of young people in Canada who will not be fit to compete in a highly technological and highly competitive world.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Because of the Trudeau Government.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Because of the cut-backs. He has pleaded with the Government to rethink its course-


Paul Wyatt Dick: It is because of how you ran the country, not us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. If Hon. Members have any questions or comments, I would appreciate it if they would save them for after the Hon. Member's speech.
I did not hear from where that comment came-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It came from Paul Dick.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: As Hon. Members know, it will be a long day, so let us try to keep it cool and have a nice debate.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I knew you were enjoying the logical and coherent manner in which I was
June 10, 1986

presenting my remarks. I knew you did not want to be disturbed. I appreciate Your Honour's desire to understand.
The little slim book which the Minister is presenting to Canadians as a synopsis of his efforts represents some $116 billion. It also represents the nature of the administration which the Government is bringing to the people of Canada. Contained within that exercise is a look at the future of the country, a future about which I am sure Canadians who are fully cognizant of it would be greatly concerned.
What other great fiscal measures has the Government taken? It spent $1 billion bailing out a bank in a series of bank crises which the Government mismanaged into crisis propostions by not acting when it should have acted or by waiting until the bottom had fallen out. It represents another $1 billion of taxpayer expenditure.


Paul Wyatt Dick: The banks are dead.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I hear the Hon. Member across the way. The banks will never die as long as there is a Tory Government in power, because the Tories always bail them out. They tell the people of Canada that they must be fiscally responsible and tighten their belts-


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the Hon. Member might want to be given the opportunity not to misinform the House. He talked about banks being bailed out. They are dead. The people got the money, not the banks. Perhaps he would like to be honest for a change.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, that is the most incredible statement I have ever heard from a so-called learned Member of this Chamber. He said that the people got the money, not the banks. That reflects the mentality of the Government. It thinks that this little Blue Book is what the exercise today is all about, that the book looks good, and that it does not matter what is its impact upon people. The Hon. Member said that the bank, the building, never got the money. Never in the history of the country or in the history of commerce anywhere has a building managed to stuff money into its pockets. Of course the shareholders got the money, and that Government provided them with it.


Paul Wyatt Dick: That is a lie.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member should not use a word like that in the House of Commons.


Mr. Axworthy:: Withdraw.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Would he please refrain from using a word like that and withdraw the statement? I would appreciate it if the Hon. Member would do that. We are just at the beginning of a long, long day, and I
Supply
would hope Hon. Members would not use language like that in the House.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that you have requested me to withdraw. I understand-


Roland de Corneille: Withdraw. Nothing else.


Paul Wyatt Dick: -that the use of the word "lie" is inappropriate in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


Paul Wyatt Dick: I feel it would be nice if he told the truth. The shareholders did not get any money. The depositors got the money, and he knows it, but I withdraw the word "lie".


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I hope this will not be taken from my time.


Roland de Corneille: The Hon. Member did not withdraw when the microphone was on. He used this as an occasion to come forth with a diatribe. It is customary to withdraw the statement and nothing else.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I appreciate what the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) is saying, but the Hon. Member did withdraw. I would hope that calmness would prevail from now on.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, with the kind of undue sensitivity which is being experienced in the House today, I can only assume that Members visited their ridings on the weekend and got an ear full from their constituents. They are back here today and are obviously more sensitive than is usually the case. Ordinarily, if we can keep them here for a few weeks and keep them away from the Canadian public, they sit placidly and everything goes over their heads. However, today they seem to have an unusual degree of sensitivity. I suggest Hon. Members ought not to go home if it causes them to be that unruly in this place. They can stay here, and I will give them the same message as their constituents would give them personally.
I have referred to the bank fiasco and to the biggest Cabinet in Canadian history. I believe it was the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) who referred to the new version of "The Life of Brian". I think it ought to be called "The Fool on the Hill". We have the President of the United States, with his lectern, watching "Bedtime for Bonzo". Now we have the Prime Minister, with his lectern, intending to watch his own video representation of "Bedtime for Bonzo" late at night, at a cost of $40,000 per shot for aircraft and video equipment. They cannot flaunt that kind of foolish, wasteful, vain expenditure in the face of Canadians on the one hand and cut back on their health care and their educational facilities on the other hand. At the same time they cannot impose upon Canadians, inc particular middle and low-income Canadians, the biggest single tax increase in Canadian history. The Government should know that it is not fooling anyone

June 10, 1986
Supply
today with this transfer of debt off the back of the federal Government and on to the backs of provincial Governments and ordinary Canadians.
During the course of his remarks, the Minister mentioned the ministerial task force on privatization. It is evident to all Canadians-and nowhere is it more evident than it is to those Canadians who live in the rural parts of the country-that the Government has moved to a strict user-pay policy. The Government of Canada is saying to Canadians that no matter where they live, no matter what conditions under which they live, the only facilities or services they shall be offered by the Government are those for which they can pay. Also it is saying that if and when they cannot pay 100 per cent of the cost of those services and facilities, they shall not have them. That is what the Government is saying.
In Clause 4 of Bill C-75 respecting the Canada Shipping Act, the Government is saying to people who live in Canada's north that future ice-breaking and coast guard services which it provides shall be paid for by them. If you cannot afford those services, you shall not have them and if without them you cannot live comfortably in Canada's north, that is your problem.
The Government is saying to the fishermen of Atlantic Canada in Bill C-75, Clause 4, that you shall pay 100 per cent of the cost of the Coast Guard if you are in trouble at sea. If you think you cannot afford to pay the cost of the Coast Guard services, you better not call and take your chances on your own, because we will bill you if we come to rescue you. That is the kind of mentality the Government has adopted. It is a user-pay concept.
What is the result, Mr. Speaker? We have the Government of Canada contemplating a $500 million expenditure for a Canadian Coast Guard vessel to protect our sovereignty in the north because the Americans can plough the northern waters with the Polar Sea whenever they feel like it, that is, ever since this administration has been in office. This administration always gives the Americans the benefit of the doubt. The Government should be investing in the north and putting money into the Mackenzie to dredge and widen it so people who live in the north can better utilize their major means of transportation. Rather than getting rid of the extra fees and penalizing people who live in the north, the Government should be putting some money into providing services. The best claim to Canadian sovereignty we can have is by having Canadians live in the north, not by having a $500 million icebreaker.
The user-pay concept, which the Government is bringing forward that says only those who live in large population centres who have enough numbers, enough of a market mentality to justify government services, is putting constraints on many Canadians' sense of citizenship. It is saying to Canadians in Atlantic Canada that you are damned if you do not live in Toronto. It is saying to people who live in Alberta
where the economy has seen a downturn you are damned as well if you do not live in Toronto.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is the same in B.C.


Brian Vincent Tobin: It is saying to the people in British Columbia, in the interior, on the coast and in the north that you are damned if you do not live in Toronto. Toronto is a very nice place to live. It is an extremely nice town. It is a city that I enjoy.


Mr. Nystrom:: Are you sure?


Brian Vincent Tobin: So too are all the other communities that make up the mosaic that is Canada. The Government must depart from the policy that says to those Canadians in the wealthiest provinces, you shall have health and education care, and to those who do not, if you cannot afford it yourselves you will not have it. The Government must depart from this policy that says to those who live in large population centres that, the numbers warrant service and you shall have service, and those who live in rural population zones shall not. If you pursue this course-


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


Brian Vincent Tobin: I am nearly finished now, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would hope the Hon. Member is finished because there is still a ten minute period for questions and comments.


Brian Vincent Tobin: If the Government sees the people of Canada as nothing more than a series of numbers in the little Blue Book then it will wreak havoc and strain the fabric that pulls the country together.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the Hon. Member mentioned the Province of Alberta and I am pleased he brought forward the topic of economic improvement. I am not at all surprised that he does not understand the difference between a shareholder and a depositor when it comes to a bank. Hopefully members of his caucus can educate him.


An Hon. Member:: I doubt it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: If the Member is going to portray himself as someone who cares about the people of Alberta, can he stand in his place and tell us whether or not the economic indicators in Alberta today are better than they were in September 1984 when his Government left office? Are the economic indicators better today or are they worse today? Can he tell us that if he wants to portray himself as the protector of Albertans?


Brian Vincent Tobin: First, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I do not want to portray myself as the protector of Albertans. I portray myself simply as I am, a humble Canadian who happens to come from Newfoundland and who happens to believe, unlike some Members in this place, that when we come to this Parliament, the Parliament of Canada, we come to speak for our own province and for the constituents who send us here,
June 10, 1986

but we come to speak for all Canadians as well. If the Member thinks that as a government Member, a Member responsible for inputting the policy to the executive branch of this administration, that he can deal with the problems in Alberta today, that his constituents want to hear him deal with the reality of Alberta today by making comparisons between now and 1982 or now and 1972 or now and 1962 or now and 1952 and so on, then let me enlighten him. Your constituents, my friend, are concerned about today's situation.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: No.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Your constituents are concerned with today's reality. Your constituents acknowledge, as I do and as most Members of Parliament do, that you now sit on the Government side of the House. That means you have a responsibility to do more than just bellow unintelligently from your seat. You have a responsibility to seek to manage the economy. What I say to you is, yes, I think the people living in Alberta today would find the situation worse, or as bad, or whatever the case may be as in previous years-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Worse.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Quite frankly it is not relevant whether it is as bad or it is worse or ten times worse or only half as bad. What is relevant is that there is a problem. What is relevant is that the Minister of State for Finance is wrong when she says that Alberta can afford to have a cut-back in the Established Programs Financing for health care and for education because Alberta is in the middle of a boom. If the Member thinks Alberta is in the middle of a boom, perhaps he should listen to the Prime Minister who says that some Members- obviously those on that side-should get their heads out of the sand, because so far the tar sands are going nowhere in Alberta.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: First, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that Alberta is a lot worse off now than it was two years ago.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: No way.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is much worse off.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Questions or comments are to be put to the person who has just finished debating. I would appreciate if the banter on both sides would cease. Perhaps the Hon. Member could address his comments to the Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin).


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I say to my friend from Newfoundland, coming from Saskatchewan, that things are a lot worse now in Saskatchewan and Alberta than they were two years ago. If somebody does not realize that, they are blind, deaf and dumb. The farm economy is collapsing because of international commodity prices. Resource prices in the forestry area, mining prices, gasoline, oil prices have all gone down. We are in a lot worse shape now than we were a year and a half ago. I think everyone in this House knows that.
Supply
The Hon. Member was chastised a little while ago in that that bank depositors did not gain from the billion dollar bailout. He did not respond to that.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Bank shareholders.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Bank shareholders. Does the Member realize that bank shareholders were the major benefactors of the billion dollar bail-out of the banks by the Government?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Shareholders? They did not get a dime.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The banks shareholders are major benefactors because the majority of the deposits in the Northland Bank and in the Canadian Commercial Bank were by other banks and by other financial institutions in this country. When you have a billion dollar bail-out, the major benefactors are the shareholders in those private banks. Is my friend from Newfoundland aware of that?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Yes that is right.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Not only Canadian bank shareholders but foreign bankers and American bankers were the benefactors of this $1 billion Tory-I better watch my rhetoric, Mr. Speaker-bungle. Once again the Government gave the money of the ordinary people to the bankers, to the depositors in those banks, the shareholders in the private banks, yet gave nothing at all in the way of a deficiency payment to the farmers of western Canada. We know where the Government's priorities are and that is why Saskatchewan and Alberta are a lot worse off now than before. That is why Tory times are tough times. That is why it is R. B. Bennett revisited. It took 50 years before the Tory Party came back in the west last time. It will take 50 years again when it is finished in the 1980s.


Roland de Corneille: They will never come back.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Member who just spoke that that is why, when I heard these noises which were largely unintelligent-I do not mean unintelligent in terms of the people who made the noises, but when taken and examined in their total context did not make much sense-I did not respond, because the largest depositors were other financial institutions. The beneficiaries of those financial institutions were shareholders and many foreign companies as well.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Foreigners.


Brian Vincent Tobin: That's right. Many foreign companies as well. When huge chunks of the Conservative Party came to the Conservative Government saying that as shareholders in an institution which had made deposits in the banks that were in trouble they were about to lose their shirts, the Government moved swiftly. It moved equally as swiftly in attempting to deindex senior citizens' pensions. However, the Government got the message on that one, not because it went out and put

June 10, 1986
Supply
its finger on the pulse of the land but because senior citizens came to Parliament Hill and laid down the law.
The Government is setting up a country in which the meaning of citizenship will be found on 10 different pieces of paper, depending on which province you are in. The Government is destroying the fundamental principle that all Canadians, no matter where they live, have equal access to certain services. By destroying health care and the education system of the country the Government is setting up 10 different levels of citizenship. Quite frankly, this Government's legacy will not be one of fiscal responsibility but of leaving the fabric which holds this country together tattered and torn.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment and ask a question on two different subjects. First, with respect to the comments relating to the past bank problems, Hon. Members are only too well aware that the Government's financial assistance went to pay those who had deposits in excess of the $60,000 insured limit. The major depositors in those banks were pension funds, credit unions, unions, municipalities, and charities. There were some deposits by other institutions, but the major ones were those I just mentioned.
The Government was criticized by members of the Opposition when it considered, in other cases in the past, not reimbursing those with deposits in excess of the insured limit. The Government was criticized for, in the words of the Opposition, "showing a lack of compassion" by allowing the poor pensioners, depositors in credit unions, muncipalities, charities, and trade unions to go down the tube. Quite rightly, the Opposition now feels that it is its duty to criticize something. Members have, therefore, put an entirely different interpretation on the facts in order that they can criticize. That is understandable because that is their role as members of the Opposition. However, they should not do it in such a way as to mislead the Canadian public.
I would like to ask a question about the comments of my hon. friend on transfers to provincial governments. My hon. friend indicated that there has been a change in the transfer of federal funds to provincial governments. As my hon. friend is well aware, the change is that the transfer payments to provinces will increase at the rate of 5 per cent in the future. This is at a time when the inflation rate in the country is 4 per cent or perhaps even less. The transfer payments to provinces by the federal Government will henceforth increase by 5 per cent. A few years ago when the Government which my hon. friend supported was in office that Government increased transfer payments by 7 per cent. That was at a time when inflation was at approximately 12 per cent. At that time inflation was higher than the transfer-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Hon. Member have a question?


Alan Redway: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Does my hon. friend not think it was shameful for the former Government to increase
transfer payments to the provinces at a rate less than that of inflation? The present Government is increasing transfer payments to the provinces at a rate greater than inflation.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, given all the interruptions during my speech I hope you will give me a minute or two to answer these two questions. I will make a quick comment on the banks. The Member wants to rewrite history. He is a revisionist. The fact of the matter is that everyone in Canada knows that the initial assistance which was provided by the Minister of State for Finance was provided as a result of a weekend meeting because the Prime Minister did not want to have bank problems become public during the middle of a federal-provincial economic meeting.
Without any analysis or study of the finances of the bank- the Hon. Member knows this and will nod his head in agreement if he is interested in hearing the facts-without any examination whatsoever of the books of the bank, the Government put together a financial package and told the opposition Parties in Parliament that the package would look after the problem. The Government said that everything was fine and both opposition Parties took the word of the Minister and the Government in the interests of those banks. That does not happen every day, but it happened then because the Opposition wanted those banks to be sustained and to be successful.
We subsequently learned that there had been no analysis whatsoever. The Government then moved to bail out foreign interests and the shareholders of other institutions. The Government knows full well that there would have been support on all sides of the House to support pensioners and other such people.
On the second question-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. I have given the Hon. Member an extra three or four minutes. I enjoy listening to the Hon. Member but we must keep a little decorum in the Chamber. Therefore, questions and comments are now terminated. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has the floor on debate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I could listen to the previous speaker for hours on end as he outlines how things are going in the country with the new Conservative Government.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Let's not get carried away.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Before I begin my formal comments I would like to indicate that it is interesting that over a weekend the Government made a commitment to bail out the uninsured depositors, most of which were very large financial institutions and many of which were foreign based. No country in the world has ever bailed out depositors to this extent before. The B.C. Teachers Investment Co-op lost its money when a financial institution got into trouble. I do not remember the federal Government offering to provide assistance. I do not
June 10, 1986

recall any initiative being provided by the Government in the form of support for the failed institution. I think it is very clear that if it is a handful of small depositors-


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is the Member implying that there were depositors in that Co-op? It is my understanding that there were no depositors and we, therefore, could not do the same thing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think the Hon. Member can ask that question when the Hon. Member finishes his speech.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is a good idea, Mr. Speaker. I encourage the Hon. Member to ask that question at the end of my speech. I will certainly have a response for him.
This is the time of year when many people are planning to go to Europe and other areas for summer holidays. You can go to bookstores and buy travel books such as "Bermuda on $15 a Day", "France on $70 a Day" or whatever the case may be. The other day I noticed a new book which has been published by one of our esteemed colleagues. I think it is only fair to point this book out. It was written by the ex-Minister of the Environment, the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mrs. Blais-Grenier). It is entitled "Europe on $5,000 a Day". This book is based on personal experience. She was there and knows the cost of renting chalets and limousines. She knows what it costs to take batteries of supporters with her. She thought she would benefit other Canadians by writing "Europe on $5,000 a Day".
This falls right on the heels of the pronouncement yesterday of the new Canadian film corporation, "Prime Minister Productions". Now we find out that wherever the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) goes he has a film crew with him to film every gesture so that the "Life of Brian" will unfold for Canadians in the years ahead. Much to the chagrin, I would say, of the Monty Python group who are very concerned about this new development and the threat to their fine film.
This is not the beginning, this is the end of a long sequence of unbelievable abuses of public funds. During the election campaign the Prime Minister, time after time, railed at Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his huge staff in the Prime Minister's Office. Those people were being used for political purposes. It was a dastardly deed and an abuse of public spending. There were 60 people, after all, in the Prime Minister's Office. He would go back and explain that Mr. Pearson as Prime Minister had just a handful of people, but here is Prime Minister Trudeau who has expanded his office to include 60 people and all kinds of equipment and offices. The Prime Minister said that must be stopped. A lot of us thought that meant we must cut back on the number. As soon as he got into office he said he was going to change it. He was going to double the staff. He would have 120 people on his payroll as personal political advisers and hacks. That is not what we expected.
Supply
Then the Government comes along and says it is going to put the cap on Government spending. It is going to stop these excessive expenditures. When the Government said that, we actually thought it was going to reduce expenditures. No longer would there be excessive and silly expenditures. Therefore, let us look at the track record and see what some recent expenditures have been.
For example, we have the bank bail-out. When historians write the record of the Conservative Government of 1984 they will say that probably one of the silliest, indeed disasterous decisions which led to its downfall in 1988 was to bail out the uninsured depositors of the CCB and Northland banks. I do not think there is a single Canadian, let alone a financial adviser in this country, who would say that step was a reasonable one for the Government to take. I remember the President of the Bank of Montreal falling all over himself laughing in the corridors of this institution when he found out his bank was going to get millions of dollars because it was included as part of the bank bail-out. He said "I can't believe the Government of Canada is going to hand us this cheque when we didn't even ask for it."


Paul Wyatt Dick: Did they get it?


Nelson Andrew Riis: They are getting it.


Paul Wyatt Dick: No.


Nelson Andrew Riis: They are going to get it. As a matter of fact, they have decided to take the Government to court.


Paul Wyatt Dick: They are not getting it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Government promised it.


Paul Wyatt Dick: No.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I think the important point is this. No Government in the world has ever bailed out uninsured bank depositors to this extent, except the Conservative Government of Canada. It is funny how you can find $1 billion over a weekend when we have women's resource centres closing their doors and transitional homes can no longer function because they are not getting their budget of $35,000 a year to operate. Those are the kind of priorities we are dealing with. When the Government says it is going to put the lid on certain kinds of spending, that means certain selected areas of spending, and others, will be expanded.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) has been very straightforward with us today. I do not criticize him in my comments today. I want to make that perfectly clear. I believe he is honourably motivated and attempting to do the best job he can. However, I am going to criticize his Government and some of the decision-making going on outside of his office.
Just the other day we heard about the consultants being hired by all the committees. These consultants are getting contracts for a few months and they are not being paid $200 a
14156

June 10, 1986
Supply
day or $300 a day or $500 a day, or even $800 a day like Macdonald. Some are being paid up to $1,000 a day, day after day after day. We are seeing more and more of that kind of spending. We may be laying off public servants, but when we look at the amount of money spent on contracts for friends and colleagues then we get a clear picture of how serious the Government is about cutting back.
We now have an opportunity to reflect for a moment or two on some of the myths which I think the Government has perpetuated over the last few months. The Government feels that government is like a business and should be run like a corporation, a shoe store chain or McDonald's. The President of the Treasury Board indicated he feels we should reward managers for productivity. The question is, how do you measure productivity in Government? I do not want to suggest for a moment that that is impossible, but the Minister says they do it in the private sector. Of course they do. It is very clear how you measure effectiveness and efficiency in the private sector; it is what the quarterly balance sheet tells you. However, it is a little different in Government.
There are other needs which Government must serve. The Government is charged with the responsibility of maintaining peace and security, and ensuring the respective rights and liberties of its citizens. It has to ensure greater justice among its citizens and act as a collective agent for the people in ensuring that the means of production serve the needs of the people. The purpose of Government is to be people-oriented in a sensible, wise and fiscally responsible way. I believe we have gotten out of control. When you run Canada like Ronald McDonald runs the McDonald's chain, then we have some real difficulties.
Another myth that the Government needs to be caught up on is the recognition of a deficit problem. The Government says we have a deficit problem, and we do. Then it goes on to say that Government spending is out of control. Probably in some areas Government spending is out of control. However, what the Government does not point to is the hidden spending which is beginning to accelerate. There are hundreds of millions, indeed billions of dollars in hidden spending called taxes we do not collect anymore. We have tax give-aways, loopholes, deferrals and incentives to the private corporate sector. They amount to billions and billions and billions of dollars each year that the Government fails to collect. That is one of the major causes of our deficit.
The Economic Council of Canada recently said that the principal cause of the federal Government's past and present fiscal plight has been the shortfall of revenue. During the past decade over-all expenditure growth had been relatively restrained. Look at some of the tax expenditures which have grown exponentially over the last 10 years. For example, the capital cost allowance and fast depreciation is now costing us $2,215 billion a year. I think it is fair to ask, are we getting good value for that expenditure? That is an incredible amount of money.
Then we go on to the special resource measures to encourage companies to explore for gas and oil. That is costing us $1,210 billion annually. The capital gains exemption costs $3.6 billion last year. On top of that, now that the Government has decided not to tax capital gains for individuals up to $500,000, there is an additional $1.2 billion cost to the taxpayer.
We have to think about this. When you look at all those write-offs and deductions and loopholes, what is the result? We are spending billions and billions and billions of dollars. May I humbly suggest that if the Government is serious about reducing the deficit, rather than hacking away at the single parents' family allowance payments each month, rather than hacking away at the Department of the Environment and laying off hundreds of people, rather than hacking away at the small grants to women's resource centres or transition houses or homes for battered women, support for Elizabeth Fry organizations and so on, rather than hack away at all of those programs, why not close off some of the major tax programs that provide us with perhaps limited return for unbelievable amounts of money.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), in a speech to the Canadian Tax Foundation on November 28, 1984, said:
Our recent figures indicate that the effect of tax incentives has been to reduce the average federal corporate income tax rate from 36 per cent to 15 per cent. When the benefits from special tax incentives are added together we are looking, in some instances, at an extraordinarily generous level of assistance.
Those are the words of the Minister of Finance referring to our corporate tax system, "extraordinarily generous". I wonder when we are asking Canadians generally to tighten their belts, to cut back wherever possible, to reduce their expenditures, if it is not reasonable to also ask the corporate sector which is receiving, by the Minister of Finance's own words, "extraordinarily generous levels of assistance" to also cut back.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Frazee of the Royal Bank of Canada recently stood up and said he was prepared to cut back on all of these excessive corporate generous tax programs and financial relief programs. I suspect that that is an area where the Government should be looking.
As my friend indicated earlier, increases in the sales tax and excise tax now are costing Canadian families dearly. I think if you were to take the time and add up all of the cost to the average Canadian family as a result of this new Government's budgets and economic statement-if you added up the sales tax, the excise tax, the increase in personal tax rates-it would come to $1,305 in additional costs per year per Canadian family. That is an awful lot of money that is coming now out of the families and the communities of Canada to enable the Government to continue with these "extraordinarily general levels of assistance" primarily to the corporate sector.
The best information we have now regarding the corporate tax rate dates back to 1983. That is the most up-to-date statistic that we have of a general nature. If you were to look at those figures you would notice that tens of thousands of
June 10, 1986

profitable businesses in Canada in 1983 did not pay a single penny in income tax. In many cases there are good and legitimate reasons for that. I would suggest that some of those tens of thousands of profitable businesses that paid no tax should be paying their fair share in order to relieve us of the deficit problem that faces our country.
Let me go on to refer to a few other items. I notice again that our Minister of Finance in a speech to the Canadian Economics Association in Montreal on May 30, 1985 had this famous quote: "No matter how we define the term Canada has an acute shortage of rich people". He indicated presumably by that that he wants to make more and more people richer. When you consider the tax changes that lead in that direction, when you consider the increase in sales tax, which is a very regressive tax, an increase in the excise tax, which again is a regressive tax, when you consider items such as the tax free capital gains provision, or the tax system, it looks as though the Minister is really trying to provide more opportunities for the wealthy of Canada. Unfortunately it is on the backs of ordinary working Canadians. This is the trend.
When the Government provides us now with its estimates of $116,740 million and asks us now to pass this because we ought to feel good about where the country is going and how the country is being managed, I have to look for some evidence of that. I have to look for evidence that things have improved significantly. I would not say that there have not been improvements. I would not say that there have not been improved processes. I would not say that the Government has turned a totally blind eye in reforming the tax system and other areas. When we ask ourselves as parliamentarians where Canada is going in the various sectors, where we going in terms of Canada's fishing industry, I wonder if the Members of the House could stand up and say, "Well, folks, here is where Canada is going in the next five or ten years with our fishing industry".
Let us take our textile industry. What is the future of the textile industry in Canada? Where are we going? Again, after two years in office I do not think that that is an unreasonable question for a Member of Parliament to be asking for some very clear direction.
Really what I see, as an Opposition parliamentarian, is the Liberal approach to governing Canada, modified in some ways, with more advantages going to some of the wealthier Canadians and more advantages going to the large corporate sector. By and large we have the same kind of direction, which in my mind is no direction that I can see. I do not see any clear pathway or clear strategy or clear blueprint or clear plan for the future. All I see is the Government muddling through, week by week, trying to work its way through and keep out of trouble, primarily, in the various sectors.
In closing, I simply want to say that a Government that makes as a priority the public relations and image, and so on, of our Prime Minister, and feels quite comfortable in spending money on creating the "Life of Brian" film: when we have Ministers of the Crown touring Europe and writing books on
Supply
"Europe on $5,000 a Day", that is the kind of activity that really betrays the changes that have come as a result of a change in Government-very, very little, indeed.


Mr. McCrossan:: Mr. Speaker, the Member he complained about the extravagance that was being shown by hiring consultants to committees at up to $1,000 a day. I wonder if the Member could explain why, in his role as NDP finance critic in the finance committee, he moved, or seconded, and voted for the hiring of these consultants to the finance committee?


Nelson Andrew Riis: I want to make it very clear that I am not suggesting that we never hire consultants in this country. I am not saying that hiring consultants is unimportant or is improper. I think it would be silly to advocate that. What I am referring to are reports that some of these consultants are being paid $ 1,000 a day.


An Hon. Member:: Who?


Nelson Andrew Riis: I do not know the names of the consultants, but I could provide the information to the Hon. Member. It is public information. My concern is to get good advice on critical important issues, and if it cannot be done by our own library staff, or cannot be done by our own researchers-and I am not certain that that has been clarified-fine. How many experts in Canada are actually worth $1,000 a day for a long-term contract? That is the point I was trying to make; the excessive payment of consultants as opposed to simply the idea of a consultant.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Member spoke about the essence of Government and how one must differentiate between the private sector and the public sector. He was here when I asked the Minister responsible for the Treasury Board how we could reconcile these bonus payments to public servants, that is to people in the higher echelons who are not in unions. I asked what the criteria were for them to be paid bonuses for productivity.
If I understood him well, I think the Minister said that there was, indeed, a difference between a Government operation and a hamburger stand or a hamburger company, called McDonald's or something else. Indeed, we were talking about public service to Canadians rather than the bottom line, as some people like us to believe.
The Minister's arguments left great room for debate, and for understanding exactly what the philosophy of the Government is in administration. I have failed to come to grips with that, and I think the theme of the debate today should be to ask the Government about its philosophy behind the administering of those public funds. We are talking about some $116 billion and we would like to know the Government's basic philosophy for obtaining efficiency and effectiveness in the public service. I do not think anyone in the House would quarrel with the objective of having effective programs and an

June 10, 1986
Supply
efficient public service to carry out those programs. The Government's expenditure is not profit oriented but service oriented for Canadians in general.
Will the Hon. Member tell the House, with respect to his province or anywhere else in Canada in his experience, whether there has been any program in which incentives were given to managers to cut services provided to Canadians? That is what the Government is doing. It is telling the managers to cut the number of public servants or they will not get their bonus money. They are being told to cut the program to its bones and spend as little as they can afford. What is the Hon. Member's reaction to the philosophy of the Government regarding the difference between public sector and private sector management?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have some very strong feelings about the point raised by the Hon. Member. My views are a result of my experience as a Member of Parliament from British Columbia who has just seen the provincial Government actually decimate that province. Not only have the social programs been cut to the bone, half of the bones are missing. The British Columbia economy is on its knees because the R. B. Bennett approach to resolving the economic and social challenges facing that province was used to the extreme, with disastrous results. That provincial Government expected just that kind of activity from its senior public servants. They were expected to make serious cut-backs in the public service, and I suggest that the record is clear for anyone who wants to see how the Socreds have mismanaged the situation in that province so badly. Their approach is the last model that anyone would want to use, and that is why some of us are so concerned that we see a similar model being applied here, but not to the same extreme. Fortunately, only the Social Credit Government in British Columbia is that silly.
There is a certain similarity with the approach taken by the President of the Treasury Board. He agreed that one way to measure effectiveness is if one can reduce the public sector. The easiest way to reduce the discretionary spending is presumably by laying off public servants. If that is the measurement for effectiveness or efficiency, one simply has to lay off half of one's Department or cut half the services provided by the Department and one will receive rewards or bonuses of one kind or another. It is that type of mindless incentive program about which we are concerned.
I am not suggesting that it is not possible to implement an evaluation system whereby outstanding performance by a public servant can be rewarded, but we want to know the criteria. This is of concern to many people, particularly to some of us from British Columbia.
We are concerned about some steps already taken. For example, the Department of Environment spent $1 million on public relations while preparing to announce a few days later that it would cut half the Department. The Government set out to rationalize the shipbuilding industry of Canada, which is an honourable objective, but it chose the president of one of
the major shipbuilding companies to head the rationalization of the shipbuilding industry in Canada. Surely that will not be seen as fair by other shipbuilding companies in the country. It is that kind of behaviour that concerns many of us, and that is why, when we are asked to vote on these Estimates of $116 billion, we are very cautious. We have not seen the kind of leadership and direction that we expected from a Government which was given such an overwhelming mandate by the people of Canada.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I was most interested in listening to the Hon. Member's remarks. I was somewhat surprised that he referred to the deficit situation, because the Hon. Member does not often refer to the fact that we do have a $33 billion deficit. He talked about some of the things that should be done to deal with that deficit and I noted, of course, that he did not say anything about eliminating or reducing any government programs. That is understandable. However, his suggestions for the items he did comment on related specifically to what he and other members of his Party like to refer to as tax loopholes and how they should be closed. Of course, the Department of Finance refers to those tax loopholes as tax expenditures.
The Hon. Member is aware that the Government has taken a number of steps since it took office to close a variety of those so-called tax loopholes or to eliminate tax expenditures. Some of these include the elimination of the Scientific Research Tax Credit, the tax shelter for hotels, recreational vehicles and yachts. The Hon. Member is aware that the Government has moved to eliminate income splitting and has introduced the minimum tax. All of these measures are aimed at closing tax loopholes.
The Hon. Member also knows that last summer the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) published a discussion paper dealing with these tax loopholes, or tax expenditures, and listed the various tax expenditures, indicating the amount of deferred taxes or taxes forgone as a result of those various loopholes or tax expenditures.
The Hon. Member referred to the $1,000 investment deduction.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the Hon. Member does not come to his question, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) will not be able to reply.


Alan Redway: The Hon. Member referred to that $1,000 deduction. He did not indicate whether he wants that eliminated. He did not refer to the fact that the biggest tax deferrals in those tax exemptions are registered retirement savings funds and pension funds.
I have heard a great deal from the Member and others in his Party about these tax loopholes or tax expenditures. I would be interested to know which ones he would like to see eliminated and whether he and his Party have responded to the Finance Minister's discussion paper, saying which loopholes they want eliminated and why?
June 10, 1986


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a short reply. I will make the Hon. Member one of the happiest people here today. The Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) asked a very reasoned question. He wants to know what specific criticisms we have about the tax system.
The New Democratic Party has just completed what we call "Tax Probe 86". It is a probe into the ins and outs of the tax system of Canada at the personal level, the corporate level, and at the sales and excise tax level. We will be publishing our report soon and I will send him the first copy so that he will know precisely what the NDP will suggest that the Government do when it comes to cleaning up and making our tax system more just and fair.


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


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in today's debate. At the outset, I want to expand on the Hon. Member's remarks about their tax probe. I recently received at my house a fund raising letter from the New Democratic Party. That letter was based on its tax probe. One of the statements made in that letter is that Canadians will spend an average of $300 more on taxes throughout the course of this year than they spent last year. While we could argue the accuracy of that statement, let me suggest that what is missing from the letter is that the average family in this country will be spending $4,000 on interest payments this year as a result of the debt incurred by the federal Government because of the NDP-Liberal alliance that tracks back to 1972. Families have wasted $4,000 on interest payments because of the Liberal policy of borrow, borrow, borrow with no responsibility.
What is also missing from that letter is the fact that interest rates have gone down a lot and many Canadian families are saving $100 and $150 a month on their mortgage payments because they finally elected a responsible Government which did not believe in "borrow, borrow, borrow, spend, spend, spend".
As we sit here and listen to all of the speeches made this morning by Members of the Opposition we heard that same theme, don't cut expenditures, go out and borrow more money. We'll pay the interest tomorrow. Who cares. The voters will love us if we give it away.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just so we understand the Hon. Member clearly, he indicated a number of Hon. Members had suggested we go out and continue to "spend, spend, spend, borrow, borrow, borrow". I wonder if he would indicate the constituencies from which those Hon. Members come?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order. The Hon. Member will have an opportunity to ask that question during the period for questions and comments.
Supply


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to go back to the speech of the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) who stood in this Chamber on behalf of Albertans. Competing in me was a desire to laugh and a kind of churning in my stomach that any Liberal who was in this Chamber after the 1980 election presumes to try to convince anyone in the Province of Alberta that the Liberals give a damn about anyone in that province. I was in this Chamber when the Liberals tried to ram through a Constitution which would have made second-class citizens of all the people in western Canada; in fact, in eight provinces of this country. They kept insisting on it. The Hon. Member who made the speech this morning was doing that. I sat in this Chamber when a Budget and a set of Main Estimates were brought into the House and I rose and said it was a catastrophe for this country and an absolute catastrophe for the people of the Province of Alberta, but the Liberals proceeded to implement that policy with the help of the New Democratic Party.
The Hon. Member talks about people. We moved from a 4 per cent unemployment rate to amost 14 per cent based on a piece of federal policy. It was not because of falling commodity prices around the world. In fact, it was the opposite. It was simply the stubbornness and foolheadedness of the Liberal Party of Canada. Our mental hospitals were full and our prisons were full. The wards in our hospitals were full of battered children and battered wives. We had suicides and heart attacks. And this was all because of a piece of public policy brought into this Chamber by the Liberal Party.
The Hon. Member stands and talks about the bad situation in Alberta today. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is a lot worse now than it was six months ago. Within one year of getting rid of that bunch, the Province of Alberta had taken care of one third of the unemployment problem. Then commodity prices fell on oil and the cumulative effect of drought made the situation very difficult. But there are 31,000 more people working today than in September of 1984 in spite of that reality, in spite of those fallen commodity prices. The employment situation is 16 per cent better than it was in 1984. It was 33 per cent better some six months ago. We are not out of the woods. We still have a higher than average unemployment rate for our province and we are still working on it. But given that rapid drop in commodity prices and its importance to the economy of my province, what is there in the Main Estimates tells us a little bit about the change in attitude of Government which makes that fall slower than it might have been and better for people than it would have been? I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is the consistent notion of our Party that all Canadians are equal. There is no such thing as a first class Canadian and a second class Canadian.
I sat in this Chamber through those difficult years when that was a hard concept to hang onto. I mentioned the Constitution and the National Energy Program. If we take a simple thing like job creation, dollars spent by the federal Government for the creation of jobs, the Hon. Member for

June 10, 1986
Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe should remember that in a Liberal Cabinet Minister's riding, the taxpayers of this country put up $586.50 per year for each unemployed person for job creation. But the unemployed in my riding in Alberta were not so lucky. The federal Treasury provided $12 per unemployed person despite the reality that we had an above average unemployment rate and that unemployment rate was created by the Liberal Government. The Liberals created the unemployment, it created the human misery and it gave $586.50 of public money for employment creation to umem-ployed people in a Liberal Cabinet Minister's riding and $12 to each unemployed person in a Conservative Member's riding. That was, that is, and I suggest in my lifetime will always be, the Liberal view of how the world goes round. The Liberals want power for power's sake. They want power for things it gives them personally and there is no coherent public policy view discernible. Whatever sells, do it. If we have to borrow today to get a vote, do it. If we have to pay for it tomorrow and if our children and grandchildren have to pay for it, but it will get us the vote so we can hang onto power, do it. That is the Liberal view.
I hope some of the grass roots Members of that Party over time will be successful in cleaning out the kinds of people who hold those views, because this country needs strong, divergent political Parties with divergent public policy views. We do not need political Parties whose sole reason for being is the procurement and continuation of power. That is what this country has had. That is what has caused us enormous difficulties. It led to separatism in the Province of Quebec. It led to separatism in my province. In the provincial election previous to the last one, the separatists in my province received close to 17 per cent of the vote. With the change of Government it went down to an infinitesimal portion of the vote, because all that the people of western Canada want to be is full and equal participants in this which is probably the finest country in the whole world. They want to be full and equal participants, not second class citizens in their own country. The Liberals would do me a favour if they did not stand up in this Chamber and insult every Albertan by trying to pretend they care a damn about anyone who lives in my province because they do not, they have not and they will not. I look forward to the continuation of my speech after lunch.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I call it one o'clock, I would like to say to the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) that he will have 10 minutes left for debate plus the 10 minutes for questions and comments.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, at a time when Canadians are expecting more action from, and more responsibility, to be exercised by, the Department of the Environment one wonders why the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) ordered the Desfosses study on ways to reduce or even dismantle the role of Environment Canada. This study has a devastating effect on the morale of the fine officials in Environment Canada and is of great concern to the public and to environmental organizations out in the field. Apparently the report suggests that the Department be stripped of most of its responsibilities and that it become a junior ministry without the power to make and enforce laws.
I urge the Deputy Prime Minister to come clean with us on this matter, to table this study, and to give an undertaking that the Department of the Environment will be restored to its original strength before the savage cuts of November, 1984.



U.S. TARIFF ON CANADIAN CEDAR SHAKES AND SHINGLES- EFFECT ON EMPLOYMENT IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, recent casualty statistics from the shakes and shingles campaign of the Canada-U.S. trade war now number more than 1,500 and include: Bob Sidhu, John Bruner, Mike Fitzgerald, Andy Papp, Gerry Bullock, Bob Tufts, Wess Neetz, Greg Bollen, Ron Veres, George Gage, Dennis Neetz, Steve Clutier, Rob Stewart, Don Chesnick, Rob Andel, Jeff Bailey, Ken Grunow, Derek Saliken, Guy Frigon, Gordon Willard, Mike Styran, Bob Van Dickson, Mike Hayes, Randy Hayes, Baldeep Nagara, Andy McLatchy, Brian Thompson, Gerald Walsyk, Rick Neveu, Ed Salman, Parmjit Mann, Murray Etter, Harbans Gill, Gill Rutledge-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.



NATIONAL TEAM'S PARTICIPATION IN WORLD CUP SOCCER TOURNAMENT

Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, as our soccer team disbands and returns home from the World Cup in
June 10, 1986

Mexico it is appropriate to recognize the tremendous contribution this team has made to Canada's international sporting image.
As a first time qualifier in this "Olympian" event, our team went to Mexico as cannon fodder. Everyone argued that the Canadians would be no match in their tough division. Instead, the Canadian team held three of the greatest soccer nations to a total of only five goals. As a consequence it gained the respect and admiration of its opponents, as well as of the soccer world.
The Canadian team's commitment was matched at home by our fans, our corporate community and, most especially, by Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek), who went out on a limb and financially backed the team.
The Canadian team identified Canada as a force to be reckoned with, and will ensure further development of this fast growing sport in Canada.



VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation made history in Ottawa. I, along with hundreds of other businesspersons, participated in the Ottawa Rough Riders' 65 Roses Sports Club Kick-off Luncheon.
The name of the club came from a youngster who was asked why his sister coughed all the time. He could not pronounce "cystic fibrosis" so he said the coughing occurred because his sister had "65 roses". The phrase has since been used across North America as the rallying call in the fight against this dreaded disease.
The Ottawa Rough Riders are the first CFL team to be associated with 65 Roses. An unbelievable 81 memberships of $1,000 were pledged, the first time in the seven-year history of the 57 clubs that a founding meeting generated over 65 members.
Mila Mulroney, Honorary Chairperson of the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, Rick Sowieta of the Rough Riders, Mayor Jim Durrell, and Robbie Thompson, the National CF Poster Child, can all be proud of the continued and remarkable generosity of our national capital region.



MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), in answer to a question from the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), stated that three years ago when I was Minister of Transport I was involved in a incident in which he claims I was using a Government aircraft for political purposes, along with two of my colleagues. That is simply not the fact.
I want to stand today to correct the record and to say that I was somewhat disturbed by the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister did not have the parliamentary courtesy to stay in the House and clarify that matter when I was here.
History is full of petty tyrants who have used the big lie technique to get their way. Fortunately, history also tells us that petty tyrants are deposed when people see through that big lie. Mr. Speaker, that can happen none too soon in this country when we get rid of the use of that tactic by too many of our government Members and Ministers.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, the latest Statistics Canada release on unemployment indicates a new drop in the number of unemployed Canadians in the month of May.
Indeed, the number of unemployed workers in Canada has declined by 102,000 during the past twelve months. Unemployment figures in Quebec for May 1985 were 385,000 as compared with 340,000 last month, a decrease of 45,000. The unemployment rate now stands at 10.6 per cent, the lowest level in six years.
Unfortunately such good news do not always make the headlines, and our Opposition colleagues do not mention them either. Still, the 45,000 men and women who did go back to work last month have nothing but praise for this Government's sound economic policies, and we have every intention of continuing our efforts to fight unemployment.
In my riding of Beauce, Mr. Speaker, the regional media do report this kind of good news.

June 10, 1986



ABORIGINAL RIGHTS


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, over the past five weeks aboriginal leaders from across Canada have joined forces to work for a new land claim policy. The present policy has failed with only one agreement signed since it was introduced in 1981.
Since recommendations for a new policy will soon go to Cabinet, aboriginal leaders want to meet with members of the Cabinet to express their position. They have not been given this chance. Despite requests for meetings with over 10 cabinet Ministers, only one, the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew), has managed to receive the group. Meetings with four other Ministers have been cancelled in the last two days, while other Ministers have refused to set a time.
Aboriginal peoples want their voices heard before the Government makes up its mind. They object to the present policy that requires them to give up their rights as aboriginal peoples before the Government will sign a land claim agreement. Land claim policy should allow aboriginal people to participate fully in Canadian society. That participation should begin with cabinet members meeting directly with aboriginal leaders to hear their concerns.



JOB PROGRAMS FOR STUDENTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, under the Challenge 86 Summer Employment/Experience Development program to which $210 million have been allocated, 241 applications have been approved in my riding of Drummond.
Now that these applications have been accepted, 365 jobs will be created in my riding thanks to $461,280 salary grants made by the federal Government, almost $100,000 more than in 1985.
In addition, 1986 is an official census year and we have created 113 jobs for assistant census takers and sector commissioners in my riding. Their total payroll amounts to $150,000.
These projects give students an opportunity to gain practical working experience which will stand them in good stead when they join the labour market in a few years.
I am particularly pleased to be able to participate in job creation for young people in my riding through this program launched by the Conservative Government.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, over the weekend the President of the Liberal Party gave us her version of how the federal Government should proceed with the trade talks. In the past few weeks we have also heard from the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Turner), the trade critic, and the external affairs critic. The funny thing is that it seems that no one is saying the same thing.
I would hazard a guess that pretty soon there will be about 39 different views from members of the Liberal Party on these talks. They must think that it is quantity and not quality which Canadian people are looking for in this issue.
The Party's external affairs critic cautiously supports the trade talks. The trade critic says he does not want us to make any compromises during the negotiations. The Leader of the Liberal Party opposes the talks one day and supports them the next. He also says that he would like to settle this issue in about five years. I suppose that will give him enough time to collect his thoughts on the matter.
This side-step-sorry, two-step-dance by members of the Liberal Party is getting very tiresome. I would suggest that members of the Liberal Party take the summer months off to come up with a consistent policy on what is probably the most important issue facing Canada. I say, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.



INSURANCE


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, finding it impossible to find second party liability insurance, the Ottawa region has had to cancel two races. The Rideau Centre Men's Five-Miler, scheduled for June 15, as well as the Digital Canada Day Five-Kilometre Run, scheduled for July 1, have both been scrapped by organizers.
"It wasn't a question of cost", said Anne Wardlaw, race director of the Rideau Centre race and a member of the organizing committee for the Canada Day event. "We can't even get a quote from any insurance company", she said.
The Rideau Centre race has been an annual event for the past four years, and this would have been the third year for the Digital race.
June 10, 1986

When will the Government intervene in this matter? We have waited a long time for some legislation to ensure that sports competition events run freely.

[ Translation]

It was a difficult task even to bring the team together, let alone to find the necessary funding to carry it through the tournament. The coaches, managers, and all off-field personnel also deserve a lot of credit for the team's success.
Perhaps most important, the team has placed soccer on the map in Canada. It is to be hoped that its efforts will go a long way in encouraging the further development of this sport in Canada so that our first visit to the World Cup will be the first of many.



FREE TRADE-IMPORTANCE OF SITUATION

Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House we debated an Opposition motion condemning the Government for its alleged lack of interest in workers in the shakes and shingles and softwood industries.
Mr. Speaker, once again, the Opposition parties have shown their incoherence and their failure to understand Canada's trade problems.
It was the Liberals who did not include shakes and shingles and lumber in the GATT agreement. It was the Liberals who kept Canadian trade in a position of inferiority by failing to protect our products in other agreements with Japan and Europe. And what is more, they are equating free trade with the recent trade incidents with the United States.
Mr. Speaker, today we have a duty to inform the Opposition and Canadians about the advantages of free trade negotiations that will lead to trade agreements between Canada and the United States that are fair to, and protect the interests of, both Canadians and Americans.



FINANCE


Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian and Quebec flow-through share system provides tax shelters that benefit the mining sector in Abitibi, by creating and maintaining employment and thus helping to develop this remote area. Thanks to recent finds, the system provides for a good source of revenue for the Government, through income and other taxes.
Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Minister responsible for Mines, Raymond Savoie, warned Quebec prospectors at a dinner with their association in Val d'Or on May 10, 1986, when he said: There has been some abuse with respect to flow-through shares, not much, but this leads to rumours that may be damaging. I urge you to be careful and to be responsible in your operations. I am willing to hold the fort, but I can't hold it alone.
Mr. Speaker, I was elected to manage the Government's business in Abitibi, and we must all protect the flow-through share system in order to eliminate the abuses of that system in Abitibi.



NATIONAL TEAM'S PARTICIPATION IN WORLD CUP SOCCER TOURNAMENT

Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words this afternoon about Canada's national soccer team whose members overcame immense obstacles to represent our country for the first time ever at the World Cup tournament, and about how they represented us.
They may not have won a game, but they won the respect of their opponents. They won the recognition of the international soccer community, and they won the admiration of all Canadians for the way they played.
It was the only team in the tournament which does not have a domestic professional soccer league as a base. In this context their efforts are even more remarkable. With determination, with skill, and with excellent strategy they proved that they deserve a place among soccer's best.



PORNOGRAPHY


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, the Government is to be congratulated for today's announcement to go beyond the Badgley and Fraser reports and to introduce tough new legislation to deal with pornography.
This joint announcement by the Justice, Health, and Youth Ministers reflects the increasing concern among Canadians about the objectionable nature and wide variety of material which distorts human sexuality and undermines human dignity.

June 10, 1986
Oral Questions
Particularly welcome are those changes which will prohibit the production, sale, rental, distribution, and even possession of that which depicts sexually explicit acts, violent and degrading behaviour, and the sexual exploitation of children. This action is a clear signal that the selfish and perverted interests of a few will no longer have free reign to warp the minds of our young people and the moral fibre of Canadian society at large.
I am sure that the many residents of Kitchener who have written to me expressing their serious concerns about pornography will be pleased by these comprehensive measures.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF WESTMINSTER ROADS STUDY GROUP

Mr. Speaker:: May I draw the attention of Hon Members to the presence in the gallery today of the Parliamentary Roads Study Group from Westminster, led by Mr. Peter Fry, Member of Parliament, and by Mr. Roy Hughes, Member of Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Minister of Health said today that he does not want to dictate to the Province of Ontario how to resolve health care problems. Meanwhile the federal Government has put immense pressure on provincial Governments by reducing federal transfer payments by about $8 billion over the next few years.
The Minister knows that by the year 1990 we will have three million senior citizens, an increase of one-third over the number of people in that category in 1980. How does the Minister expect the provinces to develop and deliver adequate medical care to our growing and aging population when the federal Government has so severely and brutally restricted and cut transfer payments to the provinces?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the first point is that the federal Government has not cut transfer payments to the provinces. Bill C-96 not only fully maintains transfer payments in place but also it has a substantial increase in it. Over a five-year period from the
previous five-year period there is an increase in transfer from $65 billion for the two programs to $90 billion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Second, Bill C-96 has included in it a provision for inflation protection. If the right hon. gentleman takes a look at the accounts of Canada he will find that other than with ODA and defence EPF is rising as rapidly as those others, so concerning that aspect the right hon. gentleman is wrong. Does the right hon. gentleman not support the Canada Health Act? Is he asking for amendments?


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we fully support the Canada Health Act. The law presently before Parliament will cut by $8 billion what the provinces would otherwise have expected. The Minister talks about keeping abreast with inflation. He knows that because of the increase in our aging population, health costs will rise faster than the rate of inflation. What does the Minister of National Health and Welfare expect the provinces to do? Does he expect them to close down hospitals, restrict research and development, or is the Minister going to force them into extra billing and user fees?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No, Mr. Speaker, none of the above. I don't look at our health care costs or our health system in those negative forms. The right hon. gentleman is correct when he says that there will be a cost impact because of aging population, because of technology, and because of new diseases. That is why, for example, as we sit down with the provinces, those issues are important.
If the hon. gentleman takes a look at the federal Government's share of health care costs and funding of the health care costs, that has not gone down. If the right hon. gentleman takes a look at Bill C-96 he will find that the funding does not go down. If he takes a look at what the provinces get in terms of the total block funding of health care and post-secondary education, the right hon. gentleman will find that the federal Government is paying quite a bit more than its share relative to that of the provinces.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
[ Translation]


BUDGETARY CUT-BACKS AFFECTING MEDICARE-NEEDS OF THE ELDERLY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the provinces do not agree with the Minister's analysis and neither do the elderly, whose numbers are expected to increase to 3 million between now and 1990.
I will repeat my question: How can we expect to meet the needs of our aging population if the Government decides to cut its spending on medicare? I don't need convincing. I think the
June 10, 1986

Minister ought to try and convince his colleague, the Minister of Finance, of the importance of this question.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, again I would have to stress to the right hon. gentleman that the federal Government is not cutting back on its share of federal moneys which the provinces have to spend for health care because the provinces have jurisdiction in health care. The federal Government's expenditure under the legislation before us, the Budget of the Minister of Finance, is going from $65 billion over the last five years to $90 billion. That is up. That is not down. It is up. Additionally, if the right hon. gentleman takes a look at inflation protection, there is full protection under Bill C-96.
I will agree with the hon. gentleman and all Members of the House that our health care system will also have to adjust. In that respect there is a responsibility of the federal Government and the provincial Governments to come up with a solution collectively, as health care has generally been addressed, to the problem of the aging population and new technologies. I suggest that the EPF is not an answer to the question he asked.


LUMBER EXPORTS-POSITION OF UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday in the House in response to a question the Minister stated that the commitment which the President of the United States, Mr. Reagan, made in a letter he sent to Senator Packwood, in which he expressed support for the efforts of the U.S. lumber industry, was at variance with what the Canadian Government understood to be the conditions under the Quebec Accord.
Is the Minister now saying that the President of the United States says one thing for domestic purposes and another thing to its very close ally and friend, Canada? Is he really saying that there are two different positions on this? Will he clarify his remarks and not leave this very serious charge on the public record?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, of course I am not saying that.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Now sit down.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry was quoting a gentleman named Santos as the speaker for the U.S. administration. We always take the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry seriously, however wrong that might be. We have checked with the White House and are advised by
Oral Questions
its spokesman that Santos was wrong and does not speak for the U.S. administration.


Ms. Copps:: Oh, I see. By letter?


MINISTER'S STATEMENT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is mistaken. I was not quoting Mr. Santos. I was quoting the Hon. Joe Clark who is the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He said, as reported at page 14112 of Hansard, that the President might say things for domestic reasons, but they are not in accord with what we had to say.
In his own statement the Minister said that the President made these commitments for his own domestic reasons. Are you now saying that there are two different lines of argument? Will the Minister clarify the record? If not, he will leave a very serious charge against the President of the United States.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Santos will answer the question.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that, and that is clear on the record. The Opposition-


John Napier Turner: That's what you said yesterday.


Charles Joseph Clark: -unable to find any common line themselves, have now begun the practice of quoting, one by one, the 240 million Americans who might have some view on the trade negotiations.


Lloyd Axworthy: I am quoting you.


Charles Joseph Clark: All I can say is that I am pleased we are not dealing with China.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: More, more.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


CLAIM MADE BY U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE OFFICIAL
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, now that we have had our little joke I will direct a question to the Prime Minister, who likes to indulge in this kind of thing, and see what he says.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: The gentleman referred to by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Santos, may not speak for the administration of the United States, but he is a senior counsel to the Senate Finance Committee which has a crucial role in the ultimate trade decision. Has the Prime Minister

June 10, 1986
Oral Questions
checked out with President Reagan or Secretary of State Shultz the claim made by Santos that, no matter what the Department of Commerce decides, President Reagan will intervene at some point to take another whack at Canadian lumber?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, we are guided by the administration and the relationships which necessarily exist. I am sure that there are all kinds of opinions floating around. We cannot check them all out and be held responsible for opinions put out by either Mr. Santos or Bob White.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's caucus may think this is funny but more than 25 million Canadians are interested in the well-being of this country. This is not a joke.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INTERESTS OF CANADIAN WORKERS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Santos, senior counsel to the Finance Committee, said that there has been a private deal made between President Reagan and certain key Senators. The President reversed his commitment to the Prime Minister in terms of the Quebec Accord. Therefore, when the Prime Minister recently wrote his "Dear Ron" letter to the President why did he not make a special appeal for consideration of the legitimate interests of all those Canadians working in the wood products sector?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I must say again, as the Secretary of State indicated, that no one knows Mr. Santos. We have not-


John Edward Broadbent: Did he say no one knows him?


Lloyd Axworthy: He is the senior trade counsel.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is what I said.


John Edward Broadbent: No one knows him?


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is what I said. I do not know him. I have not heard from him and I doubt if I will hear from him again. Am I supposed to be intimate in some way with him?


John Edward Broadbent: No, you are supposed to know who he is.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Secretary of State-


Sheila Maureen Copps: He doesn't know him.


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is nice to hear that Nadia Comaneci is back.


Mr. Speaker:: No, please. Does the Prime Minister want to finish his answer, please?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I tried to tell my hon. friend that the response was fully given by the Secretary of State for-


Mr. Marchi:: Send Joe in, at least he is funny.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I know the Liberals do not want an answer but I will try to respond to my hon. friend, the Leader of the NDP.
The case concerning the workers in British Columbia was made fully on a number of occasions and will continue to be fully defended by the Secretary of State when he convenes a very important meeting of all interested parties in Vancouver on Friday.


CLAIM MADE BY U.S. OFFICIAL
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister knows, the question is quite serious. It was the Secretary of State for External Affairs who said yesterday that the President of the United States says certain things for domestic purposes and certain other things regarding his commitment to Canada. Mr. Santos, senior counsel to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, has claimed that President Reagan made a commitment to, in effect, overrule the quasijudicial proceedings now under way. Therefore, will the Prime Minister contact President Reagan and get him to stand by the commitment he made in the Quebec Accord? It is a serious matter.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a serious matter. That is why there has to be some question raised as to why the Opposition is going through the U.S. Government phone book trying to pluck out names and quote them. With respect to Mr. Santos, who was the basis of the continuing CLC case yesterday against the trade talks, we checked with the White House. We thought that perhaps in this unusual circumstance the Leader of the NDP knew something that the rest of the world did not know. The response from the White House is, and I quote: "Santos was wrong and he does not speak for the United States administration". Therefore the NDP is left in the situation where, in order to continue its blind opposition to the trade initiative, it is going to have to invent some other statement from somebody else nobody in this House has heard of.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Bye, bye, Ed!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
June 10, 1986


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He will know that according to a military spokesman the DND Hercules aircraft is used primarily for moving freight between military bases, troop transport in Europe, moving equipment to Pine Tree, and for search and rescue as well. It has never been used for the kind of civilian purpose for which the Prime Minister commandeered it. Will he give this House the assurance that the DND Hercules aircraft will never be used again as a pack-horse for the Prime Minister in his attempt to make his version of Bedtime for Bonzol


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is quite inaccurate when he tries to paint these circumstances as being something unusual. They are not unusual at all. As a matter of fact they stem from a practice put in place by Prime Minister Trudeau in 1978, a practice with which I am sure the Hon. Member's Right Hon. Leader is very familiar.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister knows that the former Prime Minister is not in the habit of having 15 attendants being lugged around to take pictures of him so he can copy his friend in the White House and watch reruns of old movies. Will the Government give an assurance that the Hercules aircraft, the DND vehicle, will not be abused as a pack-horse to make the Prime Minister's version of the Life of Brian or Bedtime for Bonzo, and will the taxpayers be compensated for the cost of abusing this equipment to make home movies for the Prime Minister and the PC Party?


Erik Nielsen: I see the right hon. gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, applauding. He knows, if he has not told his caucus, that this is a well established practice that goes back to 1978 when it was put in place by Prime Minister Trudeau.


John Napier Turner: Come on!


Erik Nielsen: He says, "Come on". The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition I am sure recalls that the same kind of services were used by himself during the last election campaign.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions ABORIGINAL RIGHTS


LAND CLAIMS POLICY
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the Hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development back from Russia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Douglas Manly: In light of the failure of the present land claims policy where only one agreement has been signed since it was introduced in 1981, aboriginal leaders have a great interest in proposals that the Minister plans to bring before Cabinet. They hope that these will be based on the Coolican report.
Since these leaders have wanted to meet with cabinet Ministers, the Deputy Prime Minister has refused to meet with them, four other cabinet Ministers-


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


James Douglas Manly: Since four other cabinet Ministers have turned down requests for meetings I would like to ask the Minister if he will lobby with his cabinet colleagues to make sure that they will honour commitments they have made with the aboriginal leaders on a new land claims policy.


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, let me advise the Hon. Member that the matter of comprehensive land claims is before the Cabinet and will be dealt with in the appropriate order. It will be done in a way which will be consistent, in my view, with the interests and needs of Indian people and all Canadians.


EXTINGUISHMENT CLAUSE INQUIRY
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, it is important that the Minister make sure that his cabinet colleagues meet with the aboriginal leaders so they can explain their policy. Will the Minister assure the House and the aboriginal peoples that their number one request, the extinguishment clause which violates the spirit of the Constitution recognizing aboriginal rights, will not be a part of the proposal he brings to Cabinet?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, the recommendations with respect to the change in comprehensive claim policies are very, very extensive and very complex. I can assure him that the appropriate consideration by all members of Cabinet will be made before the determination of the policy.

June 10, 1986
Oral Questions


THE PRIME MINISTER
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I would like to know whether he is willing to table today in the House the cost of all the Hercules flights that were made so he could star in some home movies that are nothing but propaganda for the Progressive Conservative Party. Is he prepared to table the cost of those trips in the House?


Erik Nielsen: Well, the Hon. Member may be unaware of the fact that the approval with respect to the use of government aircraft is my responsibility. I give her the same answer that I gave to her colleague a moment ago, that the practice of using government aircraft and the PCO technical services was established in 1978 by Prime Minister Trudeau-including video and other such services-and indeed such services were used by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Member's own Leader, when he was in office.


TRAVEL DESTINATIONS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, if the Deputy Prime Minister is not prepared to admit that the video abuse of the Hercules was absolutely unconscionable, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he does not feel it is passing strange that according to government documents examined today government jets have taken Mr. Mulroney and his family more often to West Palm Beach-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The government jets have been used more often to go back and forth to West Palm Beach than they have to Baie Comeau.


Erik Nielsen: With respect to the first part of the question, the role of technical services in PCO is to provide effective technical support to PMO, PCO, FPRO, including the design, procurement, installation, maintenance, testing and operation of audio, visual, video and digital analogue communications facility systems and services.
With respect to the use of government aircraft she obviously was not here yesterday when I compared the 18-month period in office of this Government with the last 12 months of the last Government. The number of flights flown have been reduced by 22 per cent. The number of hours flown have been reduced by 23 per cent, and a saving of two and a half million dollars has resulted.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of National Defence. A World War I fighter pilot 91 years of age wants to know why he and his fellow World War I airmen were denied by his Ministry, for the first time in Canadian history, the use of military aircraft to enable these few World War I vets to attend their annual reunion in Canada?


Erik Nielsen: If the hon. gentleman would forward to me particulars of that allegation I will ensure that he has a full and detailed response. The use of government aircraft is governed by guidelines that are in place. He knows it, and he and other members of his Party have used that service in the past. The guidelines and the circumstances that he described would have to be looked at in the light of those circumstances. So, please, let me have them.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of National Defence saying it is quite appropriate to have military aircraft used for the filming of the Life of Brian, but not to help the few World War I fighter pilots who want to meet once a year in various cities in this country? Is that his priority?


Erik Nielsen: That is absolutely false. The hon. gentleman should know it. He himself, along with his family, has used military aircraft to go from this place to his own home province.


DEVELOPMENT OF HIBERNIA AND TAR SANDS PROJECTS
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Since the Chairman of Petro-Canada, Mr. Hopper, admitted last night that both Hibernia and the tar sands are going to need financial assistance from the Government if they are to be developed, will the Government provide this financial assistance so that they can be brought onstream and be developed? If so, when?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, if I might reply to the Hon. Member on that, discussions are ongoing with the operator of Hibernia and both levels of government, both our colleagues in the provincial Government in Newfoundland and the Canadian Government. There was a meeting as recently as a week ago. Ongoing discussions are
June 10, 1986

taking place to check the various numbers that are involved in the bringing on stream of Hibernia, and the companies now are investigating what is required to bring that onstream. These talks are going on very, very well and we are very confident that Hibernia will be brought onstream.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister. Mr. Hopper also stated that by 1992 or 1993 all Quebec's requirements will be met by oil imports, unless we develop our resources now.


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


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Does the Government intend to drop security of supply, or is it going to act now to start up these projects before it's too late?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, first of all I must point out to the Hon. Member that this Government has never said it is abandoning security of supply. Quite to the contrary. That is why we are having these discussions. They are ongoing, they are current, and I know they will have a positive result.


CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY
John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. With the introduction of the new Canadian Jobs Strategy in one-industry towns where individuals who have worked for a number of years are being laid off due to high-tech or changes in the resource base, will the Minister tell the House her plans for Canadians in the 40 and over age group?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Timiskaming for his question with regard to older workers. It is a subject of concern that has been raised by a number of Members in the House. The Canadian Jobs Strategy programs at the moment include some 14,000 people who are in the older worker category. As well, there are specific projects which are directed to them, such as the one in Hamilton, the Citizen's Action Group of Hamilton, that is looking at the problems of older workers in that area. As well, we have Outreach projects directed to those who are over 50. I want to mention as well that in his Budget the Minister of Finance
Oral Questions
allocated some $125 million for an older workers program. These and other initiatives will continue to be taken.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Minister is verging on a statement.


ENVIRONMENT CANADA
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Concerns have been expressed recently about the possible demotion of the Department of the Environment to a junior Department, and stripping that Department of responsibilities it now has for the environment. As the person in charge of the Government and Cabinet, will the Prime Minister assure the House that there will be no demotion of the Department of the Environment or stripping away of its responsibilities so that he can allay the widespread concern that exists within the environmental community as a result of that proposal?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if there are concerns, they would be completely unfounded. I believe it is generally regarded that the Minister of the Environment is doing an exceptional job and reflecting a high priority that the Government gives to all environmental matters.


DEPARTMENT'S RESPONSIBILITIES
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that the Prime Minister va'ues the environment. I hope that is the assurance I was looking for, although it is not as carefully worded as I would like. Will he consider not only not demoting the Department of the Environment but elevating it to the level where environmental decisions, whether they concern agriculture, transport or whatever, are made by the Department of the Environment and not the Departments that deal with the users of particular chemicals or substances that are involved?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it would be hard for this Party to elevate the Department of the Environment because, in our judgment, it is where it ought to be-sky high in our priorities.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister. He knows that the one occasion that I had to use

June 10, 1986
Oral Questions
government aircraft while I was Prime Minister was to visit the Queen. That was a Jetstar. There never was a Hercules aircraft used, to our knowledge, for support. During the election there were two technicians with me to keep me in touch with the Government of Canada. Their travel was paid for by the Liberal Party during the election. I want to ask him to produce proof to substantiate the charge he made against me in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry that the right hon. gentleman takes my remarks as being a charge against him. All that I was doing-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It certainly looked like it.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The usual buffoonery.


Erik Nielsen: -was to recount for the edifiction of his Members that the technical services established in the Privy Council Office were established by his predecessor, Prime Minister Trudeau, in 1978. Those services have been used since that time by that Prime Minister, by the right hon. gentleman, and in the same way those services are being utilized by the Prime Minister now in office.


REQUEST FOR VERIFICATION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that is not the impression he meant to give here. He talked about supporting Hercules aircraft such as the Prime Minister is using for his own video ego massage. That is not the type of thing we did. I want him also to produce the proof. Mr. Trudeau may have made some authorization for some technical support staff. Show the House when Mr. Trudeau ever took along a Hercules for his own ego gratification, with supporting video staff. Support that.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of the aircraft-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: What a phoney. What a sleaze artist you are.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Napier Turner: The Prime Minister condoned it. Sitting beside him.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Take it easy. Be a hero for once.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Napier Turner: What a sleaze.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Need I caution-the Deputy Prime Minister may finish his answer.


Erik Nielsen: It is a question of the establishment of technical services in PCO to provide those services that I have described.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Hang your head in shame.


Erik Nielsen: The Armed Forces have a fleet of a wide range of aircraft that are available for use for non-military purposes to the Prime Minister's Office, going back to 1978 in this particular instance, and for Members of Parliament, for its committees, and for other designated purposes other than military. There is nothing unusual, with respect to the aircraft or the type of services that were utilized in this instance, from the 1978 policy set by Prime Minister Trudeau.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Lloyd Axworthy: Applause, fellows. Come on, guys.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Fall guy for the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Churchill has the floor.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. He is going to Geneva next week to attend the International Labour Organization meeting. Will he support the request of the Canadian Labour Congress and ask the ILO to investigate the Alberta laws which are presently creating problems such as the Gainers strike?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member could be of assistance if he could inform me of any convention that may allow the ILO to conduct that investigation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Rodney Edward Murphy: It is unusual that the Minister asks me a question.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ASSISTANCE
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister is aware that there is a convention enabling unions to negotiate a collective agreement without undue interference. Will the Minister use his good offices to try to resolve that problem, whether he does so in Geneva or whether he is willing
June 10, 1986

to do so in the Province of Alberta? I am asking whether he is willing to do that?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, in the future, as in the past, the Government of Canada, with the support of the ILO by this Government, will be open to any suggestion from the ILO. As the Hon. Member is aware, there was a study team from the ILO here last year that had the full support of the provincial Governments of the provinces where they did those studies, as well as the full support of the Canadian Government in carrying out those studies.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It concerns the price that consumers are paying for a litre of gas. In view of the fact that the crude oil portion has decreased, how can one justify that the refinery share has increased from 8.8 cents per litre in January to 11.3 cents in May, an increase of 2.5 cents, or 28 per cent? Is not this action a cruel, hidden rip-off of the consumer when prices were falling?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: That is not how you get into the Cabinet, John.


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, the Member knows that the Government does not set the gasoline prices. However, if he has evidence of any infraction I will be glad to relay it to the Director under the Combines Investigation Act. I want to remind him that the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission is looking into this matter and should release its report shortly.


REFUGEES
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Immigration. I have a copy of a leaked departmental letter that was sent to individuals, including accused murderers and drug traffickers, which states that: "Since you are the subject of an arrest dated on or before May 21, you are eligible for consideration under this review if you declare an intent to claim refugee status." Why did his colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, say in the House yesterday that: "-this review will include no one with regard to criminality."? Why are you
Oral Questions
inviting such individuals to Canada? And why don't you come clean with the facts?


Hon. Walter McLean (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's statement does not do justice to the facts. He was briefed in the standing committee last week regarding the purpose of these letters. Let me reiterate to the Hon. Member, the letter was sent only to those who are subject to an inquiry. The purpose of the letter is only to determine whether those people who are in one way or another in violation of the Immigration Act have any intention to claim refugee status at their inquiry. No one here with any security concerns or health considerations will benefit from this review.


Mr. Speaker:: Supplementary question through the Chair, please.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear, and I have documents to prove that drug traffickers, murderers and break-and-enter artists are receiving an invitation to participate in the review. I would like to ask the Minister, since he is trying to separate immigration from refugee claimants, why he is extending an invitation to participate in the review to individuals who have not filed refugee claims and are not refugees. Why does he not deal with the legitimate cases in the 22,000 backlog and not fiddle around with criminals and hard-core individuals?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I would invite the Hon. Member to be part of a positive communication about the intention of this Government which is being widely and positively received. Let me again say to the Hon. Member, and to Hon. Members of this House, that persons illegally in Canada who have evaded removal actions for months or for years are not eligible for the review.


Sergio Marchi: Why did you send them a letter, then? Why send them a letter?


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Post Office. Why has the Minister ended the term of a member of the Board of the Post Office shortly after having written him in a personal and confidential letter saying: "Canada Post Corporation has benefited from your outstanding contribution"? Is the Minister simply trying to eliminate any critics of cost-cutting options at Canada Post, such as his own

June 10, 1986
Oral Questions
announced intention to use mailboxes in suburban communities?

Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs and Canada Post): Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the policy of this Government is quite simply to review the mandates of Crown corporations as they expire and to make changes at the appropriate time. I can assure my colleague that this policy has always been enforced, that it will continue to be enforced and that, as far as I am concerned, there has been no change in that respect.


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF UNION REPRESENTATIVE'S REMOVAL
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to understand why the Minister would remove a union representative who has a clean record. Did the Minister adopt the old Athenian tradition and kill the messenger because he did not like the message?
Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs and Canada Post): On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I think it is our responsibility. Two seats are reserved for union representatives and, in my opinion, this policy has not been changed. I will make sure that, at the appropriate time, union representatives sit on the management committee.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question to the Minister for the status of women. Last week, the Minister met with his provincial counterparts to discuss issues related to the status of women in Canada. Could the Minister tell us today what were the results of this meeting last week?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I would like to report to the House and particularly to the Hon. Member who I know is interested in issues relating to women. On the many issues discussed at the federal-provincial conference there were two significant decisions; first, the tabling of 11 reports on wife battering showing what action is now being taken and what actions Governments must take in the next two years; second, the need for action on issues of immigrant and refugee women. We also dealt with the establishment of data collection in order to know who are our native born Canadians and who are our immigrants. The important issue of language training and the certification of immigrant women who have technical or university training was also discussed.


GOVERNMENT POLICIES
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister for the Status of Women. In view of the reply we have just heard, I would simply like to know whether the Minister can tell us if he has other studies to propose or whether the Government will instead take some action. What specific policies can you propose following last week's meeting?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I presume the Hon. Member is referring to the serious matter of wife battering and family violence. In relation to that, as the Hon. Member will know, federal-provincial territorial Ministers have had a study going on for two years. The result is a report to Governments showing specifically what services are available and pin-pointing what must be done in each jurisdiction during the next two years.
Obviously that direction has to be undertaken by Governments and, in many cases, needs to be done co-operatively.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary about these studies requested two years ago.
My question is this: What does the Government plan to do about these issues? What are your action plans? Not more studies! What do you have to suggest? Why are you dragging your feet?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the Ministers responsible for the status of women are advocate Ministers. They now have ammunition to take to the cabinet table what is now needed in terms of transition housing, for example, and what is needed in terms of long-term housing. For those who take part in programs for counselling battered women, there are a whole range of areas about the criminality and the importance of laying charges against those who batter. The plan which is outlined in the reports is a blueprint for all Governments. I would encourage the Hon. Member to be in touch with provincial Governments of her Party's persuasion as we will be in touch with cabinet colleagues on these issues.


CHILD CARE
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. As he probably
June 10, 1986

knows, the Special Committee on Child Care is concluding hearings with hundreds of witnesses from across Canada. Since the evidence is overwhelming that federal leadership is needed, will the Minister assure Canadians that he is planning now to priorize funds from general revenue to help improve child care across Canada for 1987?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has sat on that task force. She knows the hearings for witnesses are pretty well now completed. The task force, as I understand it, will now be writing its report. I am sure as a member of the task force she will want to be part of the recommendations first and give its position both to the Government and to Parliament generally.


REQUEST FOR FUNDING COMMITMENT
Margaret Anne Mitchell: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The committee recommendations, regardless of what they are, cannot be implemented if we do not have funds. Will the Minister of Finance commit funds now in his Budget planning for 1987 so we will be able to take some steps to improve the situation? And will he take the funds out of general revenue, not family benefits?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we have a process in this House where we have committees preparing reports. The recommendations are then presented. Following that, the Government of Canada will make responses to those reports. When we see the report and the recommendations, and when we see the full impact of what the report says, at that time we will be able to make a proper judgment.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: You are planning your Budget now, Mike.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. The Minister, speaking at an annual convention of the Consumers Association of Canada, said: "Community mailboxes are not liked but they are going to be a fact of life". Is he telling Canadians that he supports green community mailboxes and discriminating against 25,000 households in new urban districts? Is he supporting that system?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member
House of Commons
knows quite well that the Minister of Finance asked the Canada Post Corporation to become financially self-sufficient as soon as possible and that we therefore had to ensure that these recommendations would be made at the same time as we would improve the postal service.
These are two criteria which we must consider before recommending solutions to Cabinet and making a public announcement.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, a very brief supplementary, if you please. HOME MAIL DELIVERY


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister pretend that the Canada Post Corporation is looking at home delivery problems when, last year alone, the Minister responsible refused this service to over
25,000	households?
How can you say that you are considering the matter when the decision has already been made?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that no decision has been made.
We are looking at alternative solutions, and when a decision is made, we shall announce it publicly in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: May I say to the House that the Chair is a little concerned about the growing use of "you" as opposed to questions being posed through the Chair. I wish to remind Hon. Members of that.


TWENTY-NINE YEARS OF CONTINUOUS SERVICE AS MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS-MR. CROUSE-MR. COATES
Mr. Speaker:: I would like to remind Hon. Members that on June 10, 1957, two Members were elected to the House and have served continuously for 29 years. They are the Hon. Member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) and the Hon. Member for Cumberland-Colchester (Mr. Coates).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
COMMONS DEBATES__________________ June 10, 1986
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. de Cotret:
That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987, laid upon the Table, Thursday, February 27, 1986, be concurred in,
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to continue for another 10 minutes on the topic of the Main Estimates. These Main Estimates are similar to the ones which were presented a year ago, but those two sets are completely different from those that were presented to the House for some years in a row. There are several differences which are important to underline.
The most important feature of these Main Estimates is that they are real. There is a reality base to the spending plans of the Government. When the Liberals were in power and we were in opposition we stood up time after time and said that the Main Estimates were not real. Usually some two years later we would see the real numbers from the Public Accounts Committee. We would find that the Government had spent 15 per cent or 20 per cent more than it said it would spend in the Main Estimates. It would receive less revenue than it said it would receive and it would spend more money than it said it would spend. That is how this country got itself into such a financial mess.
I would like to pay public tribute to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) for the accuracy of his last Main Estimates. I anticipate the accuracy of the present Main Estimates. I suspect that when we stand in the House two years from now looking back on this set of Main Estimates we will see that if they err in any way, they will err in terms of over-estimated expenditures as opposed to under-estimated expenditures. That is important for the future of the country.
Within these Main Estimates are estimates for each of the Departments of Government. In the little bit of time I have left I would like to review with the House some positive changes in public policy that form a part of these Estimates. I would like to contrast my view with the view of the members of the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party.
I would like to talk about the issue of unemployment, and in particular youth unemployment. Those of use who have served in this Chamber and who have served on some of the committees of the House have long been aware, in a real sense, of the tragedy that is represented by youth unemployment. We saw the phenomenon grow throughout the 1980s up until 1984. We have seen a significant reduction in those figures since the country had the wisdom to change Governments in 1984. The youth unemployment rate is now falling rather than rising. However, it is still a tragedy. There are far too many young people who cannot obtain that first job which gives them the
experience that leads to a permanent full-time job and, ultimately, to a career.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) announced a change in philosophy soon after she took office. She said that she would take the money which the Chamber votes for employment-creation programs and, in particular, youth employment-creation programs, and try to stretch it so as to encompass more young people. The Minister said that she would try to make that work experience a more positive work experience.
Last summer under the SEED Program, the Minister took roughly the same amount of money that was available in 1984, the last year that the Liberals were in charge, and used it to create over 100,000 jobs. The previous administration created only 65,000 jobs. That is a 50 per cent plus improvement. The characteristics of the jobs were different. First, they were different in terms of wages. On average, wages were higher for those young people. The jobs tended to last 10 per cent longer. The other characteristic with respect to these jobs that was different was that the large majority of them provided career-related work experience.
When one talks about a young person trying to break into the Canadian labour market, the biggest barrier faced is the reality that he or she has no related work experience and therefore no letter of reference from a previous employer. The Minister changed all that. Some 50 per cent more young people were working, most of them in a career-related job in which they could obtain that so important first letter of reference. These letters allow a future long-term employer to see that this young person has met the criteria, knows how to work and has skills related to the type of job being sought. That was a very positive development. Yet when we stand in the Chamber and when we sit in committee we find that both opposition Parties continue to quarrel with the Minister as if there were something wrong with young people obtaining career-related work. It is as if there is something wrong in providing more jobs of longer duration and with better wages with the expenditure of the same amount of money.
Common sense makes us ask, where is the logic in the criticism which we hear in this Chamber day after day? One of the programs affecting youth which the Government decided to cut was Katimavik. There was quite a debate in this Chamber in that respect. There was even a hunger strike in the Senate. I phoned the offices of Katimavik and found out that in 1984-85, the last year for which figures were available, $48 million was devoted to the program. I found out that there were 4,092 young people who started in the program. If one divides the two numbers one into the other one comes up with the figure $11,730 per young person for a nine-month experience. However, only 2,823 young people finished. If one divides that figure into the other one comes up with $17,003 per young person for a nine-month experience. Does it make common sense to spend $2,000 a month on a very small group of young people who are selected essentially at random? These
June 10, 1986

young people do not have special problems, learning difficulties or handicaps. There is nothing indicating that they need something very different from most young people. Through the Katimavik Program, we were spending amounts of money that far exceeded the poverty level for a family of four on each of those young people chosen at random to participate in the program.
That same expenditure of dollars could provide five or six times as many jobs for young people. Those could be career-related jobs and young people could receive their first letters of reference and get started on their careers. I am proud to rise in the House to support the Estimates leading to public policy designed to spend money in a much smarter and better way for the public good.
Mir. Redway: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member commented on youth employment programs and indicated that there has been a good deal of criticism of those programs by the Opposition and others. Some of that criticism has been levelled at student summer employment programs and particularly at the Challenge '86 Program. A good deal of the funding in Challenge '86 is directed partly to the private sector, partly to municipalities and partly to non-profit organizations to provide jobs. This year a shift seems to have taken place and more money is being spent assisting the private sector to provide jobs. As you know, Mr. Speaker, part of the criticism has dealt with the fact that the private sector is able to provide its own money to create jobs for students during the summer and part of the criticism coming from the non-profit sector has been directed at the fact that a lot of the jobs being created for the summer in private industry are not actually career related. As a result, the non-profit sector has been losing funding which it had spent in the past on creating programs for students to get career-related job training for that type of job.
What is the Hon. Member's opinion of this criticism? Does he think it is valid?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for the question. I recognize that the Hon. Member is new to this Chamber and was not here when the former Liberal Government used all the employment-creation programs for virtually one purpose and one purpose only, and that was to help individual Members get re-elected. There was no attempt made to ensure that young people got jobs that were career related and there was not an even distribution of jobs for young people across the country. If a young person happened to live in the riding of a Liberal cabinet Minister, he was a first-class citizen and had a better shot at a job than one who did not live there. If a young person was helping a Liberal cabinet Minister get re-elected, he had an even better shot at the job.
We have made all Canadian young people equal when applying for jobs. We have launched advertising campaigns designed to get prospective employers, private or public, to put
Supply
forward projects that would to the greatest extent possible provide career-related opportunities for young people.
I think we have to acknowledge that within the Canadian labour force, some 85 per cent of jobs are in the private sector. The job picture for young people this summer is that about 35 per cent to 40 per cent of the jobs, depending on the part of the country, are in the private sector. Yet 85 per cent of those young people are likely to end up with jobs in the private sector. I think we have quite a ways to go in trying to provide career-related experience.
Part of the problem with the old program was the pork-barrelling that was the dominant public policy philosophy. I think we have left behind that pork-barrelling philosophy. It is clear in our minds that it is the young people and the reality that they cannot get a first job that is important. Young people have a tough time getting started on a career and our public policy is dominated by the reality that we are helping young people get that first job and that letter of reference so that they may move forward on a career-related path. I support that change in philosophy 1,001 per cent.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, it has been a long time since I heard such an inane and empty answer as the one given by the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). It is just pathetic to hear him describe-


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It's real, Charles. That's what it was all about for four years.


Mr. Caccia:: -the programs the Government has quickly torpedoed with such phoney reasons.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Not phoney, real.


Charles L. Caccia: It just makes my blood boil with rage. To describe Katimavik as a form of pork-barrelling, as the Hon. Member did a moment ago, is to display such a degree of ignorance and insensitivity to the necessity of a program-


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Your people picked all the employees.


Charles L. Caccia: He does not want to hear the music. I can well understand why he is leaving the Chamber. He just cannot stand the heat.
If anything, Katimavik provided Canadian youth an opportunity to learn about life and about active involvement in our communities. It provided them an opportunity to learn about the other official language and to serve a period of apprenticeship preceding the seeking and finding of permanent employment. It has been the envy of and admired by a number of Governments in many parts of the western world. Katimavik became well known because it was seen that Canada had found a good formula designed to provide a transition period for young people who had left school and not yet found employment. It provided young people an opportunity to serve the community and the country in such a manner.

June 10, 1986
Supply
The Hon. Member for Calgary West complained about the fact that Katimavik cost some $11,000 per youth and he then engaged in quite an elaborate accounting process. The fact remains that these are social costs. These are actually social investments and they are desirable. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there is a high level of unemployment among youth in Canada and any effort that is made by way of Katimavik or any other scheme to assist youth in a transitional way to adapt and integrate into adult society is a good scheme and should be supported.
It is shameful to hear this kind of nonsense coming from government Members who have described Katimavik in those terms and have added insult to injury by describing it as a pork-barrelling employment project. It is also insulting to a study on youth that was conducted by the other Chamber. Among other things, it made the point that if we needed anything, we needed an expanded, reinforced, and perhaps a better Katimavik than the one we have had so far. If it is found that the ratio of investment to benefits or that certain projects were weak, let us improve them and learn from past experience. However, let us not, to use an analogy, throw out the baby with the bath water. We had found a good formula in Katimavik, one which ought to be reinforced rather than denigrated or even thrown away. Up to this point today, the Government has not come forward with an alternative to Katimavik. We are awaiting an answer in that regard. Our youth, particularly those who are unemployed, are expecting a reply from the Government on what it intends to do to fill the vacuum left as a result of the cancellation of Katimavik.
My intervention in this debate is not meant to reply to the nonsense put forward by the Hon. Member for Calgary West. I was glad to hear the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) express a well modulated but nevertheless gently critical approach to the employment program of the Government through Challenge '86. I share his concern. I must say that the way in which he formulated his question indicated that it was well thought out.
It is becoming clear that the Government does not seem to realize that the intention of Challenge '86 is to create jobs at the present time in the private sector with employers who would apparently create those jobs, at the expense of voluntary organizations such as St. John Ambulance. For the benefit of those who may be interested, I refer to a letter which that organization sent to every Member of Parliament, expressing its profound disappointment in the fact that its application was not accepted. It is as if that organization did not create jobs, as if it was an organization which did not provide valuable community activities and experience for young people.
At the present time it would appear that under Challenge '86 the tendency is to ignore the public sector, voluntary agencies, and all those organizations intent upon creating jobs to serve the community. The focus is aimed mostly at jobs in business. In any event, that was not my purpose for rising
today. I am still reacting with some degree of rage to the intervention of the Hon. Member for Calgary West.
I should like to speak about the environment and the amounts in this Bill which will be approved. In particular I should like to refer to $2 million which was approved by the Government. The first $1 million is for an advertising campaign on misfuelling. Mr. Speaker, you are about to hear me talk about misfuelling for the fifth time. I do not envy you, but it is an indication of the stubbornness of the Government. The other $1 million was spent during Environment Week on a number of public relations activities mostly involving songs and balloons, which were not accompanied by decisions, measures, or announcements of substance.
First I will tackle the question of the advertising campaign on misfuelling. I presume the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), who is honouring us with his presence today in the House, must have had a say in approving it. This $1 million measure is aimed at motorists, to discourage them from misfuelling at the pumps. These days there is a tendency at the pumps for people to buy leaded gasoline for cars which are intended to run on unleaded gasoline. In so doing, those purchasers engage in a practice which in the long term ruins the engines of the automobiles they drive. Also, the combustion of that gasoline adds to the level of NOx emissions, in scientific jargon, which find their way into the atmosphere and ultimately add to the acidity of precipitation.
The concern with misfuelling is an understandable one. I commend the Government for being concerned about it. However, where we disagree profoundly is the technique used by the Government in tackling the problem. It feels that a $1 million campaign against misfuelling will deliver the desired results. I contend-and I raised this when we debated second and third reading stages of Bill C-80-that the way to tackle the matter would be for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to revise the federal taxes imposed upon gasoline in such a way that the price at the pumps for unleaded and leaded gasoline would be equal. In my estimation that would be the way to remove the incentive which exists at the present time for some motorists to buy leaded gasoline when they should not buy it. Therefore, it requires a fiscal measure. It requires deliberate action on the part of the Government to remove the market force behind the formulation of the price at the pumps which makes leaded gasoline more attractive.
At this stage, leaded gasoline is 3 cents cheaper than unleaded gasoline, whereas a year ago it was some 2.5 cents cheaper; earlier it was even less. We have seen an increase in the gap between the price of leaded and the price of unleaded gasoline that I can only attribute, in the usual non-partisan manner for which I am known, to the regime of the Progressive Conservative Party. I cannot find any other explanation; perhaps other Members would have a better one.
This brings me back to the necessity of registering with the Government that $1 million in an advertising campaign, as well meant as it may be, will not deliver the goods or achieve the desired result. The desired result will be achieved when the
June 10, 1986

Government, perhaps in co-operation with provincial Governments that also have a say in the formulation of taxes on gasoline, brings about a taxation regime whereby consumers will find the same pricing level between unleaded and leaded gasoline at the pumps.
If my suggestion sounds somewhat outlandish or idealistic, if it sounds as if the Hon. Member for Davenport is on a marginal and tangential kick at the impossible, I should like to allay those fears by saying that three countries have already adopted such a policy. Two countries, Denmark and Austria, offer leaded and unleaded gasoline at the same price. As of April 1 the unheard of happened, namely, Holland took the unusual step of offering unleaded gasoline at a price below that of leaded gasoline for environmental reasons. Environmental reasons are really health reasons or reasons related to our resources, to the damage which is caused in the long term by the acidity of rain. The entire thrust of that fiscal policy in Holland is to make it more attractive for consumers to purchase unleaded gasoline.
Not only has Holland done that, it has also looked at the taxation on new cars, the tax applied by the Dutch Government on the price of cars. It is now weighted in favour of environmentally friendly models and against cars which do not have catalytic converters or other built-in gadgets intended to protect the environment.
This policy thrust is beginning to shape up in certain countries. I bring it to the attention of the Government once again because I think it is using outdated modes of making an impact upon public behaviour by engaging in advertising campaigns. The ads began to appear yesterday. I saw the first one in The Globe and Mail and in Le Devoir. It is a nice ad, in English and in French. Beyond that, I think it will just remain what it is, an ad in the newspaper.
If the Government is serious about the environment, it will have to do something more than just engage in advertising campaigns. It will have to show its political will through a taxation system that favours the purchase of unleaded gasoline and the purchase of cars equipped with converters and other equipment meant to protect the environment. Thus we can reduce the formation of acidic substances which find their way into the atmosphere and fall to earth. These substances get into our forests, our streams and our crops by way of rain and snow precipitation.
The other thrust of my criticism of the Government is the spending of another $1 million, this time not on direct advertising but through activities which took place last week to celebrate Environment Week. You know what they are, Mr. Speaker. They go from balloons to songs and other public relations matters. I would not object if that were accompanied by something of substance. But those measures have been the only measures put forward by the Government to celebrate Environment Week. That is not good enough, for heaven's sake. If the Government had come forward with a number of
Supply
measures intended to restore and strengthen the role of Environment Canada and to heighten environmental interest in the public, I would have said all right, that is good. But we did not hear one word on a number of initiatives that ought to have been addressed one way or the other. I will give a few examples.
There is still silence on the part of the Government on reinstating the Guelph Toxicology Centre, a program cancelled by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in November, 1984. Yet we all know that toxic chemicals are the subject of increasing public concern for a number of reasons, best expressed by a number of scientific reports that saw the light of day in 1985 and again in 1986.
There has been no word on the part of the Government about reinforcing the role of the Canadian Wildlife Service which, as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, was cut by 27 per cent in November, 1984 and which performed a very important role in monitoring health effects in wildlife, thus giving us an indication as to the impact on human health over the long term. There has been no restoration of the strength of the Environmental Protection Services in the Department of the Environment which had cuts of several million dollars in 1984.
Parks Canada had its centennial last year. I would have thought Environment Week would have been a good week for a statement on expanding and strengthening our national parks system. There are a number of things waiting to be done. For instance, a marine parks system is ready to go any time the Government wishes to give it the green light. Yet that project has been sitting since 1984. It was ready in 1984 at the time when the election was called. There is silence, and now and then we hear a little peep. There has been no indication of the intentions for Parks Canada by strengthening and expanding the parks system in its second century.
This leads me to another observation. Environment Week lent an opportunity for the Government to give a signal about its intention in the field of scientific research. We should have had a signal that the Government would strengthen and increase subsidies for scientific research, particularly in the field of toxicology, which is, in a way, connected with the Guelph Toxicology Centre but on a broader base. It was interesting two days ago to see the Member from Saskatoon rise under Standing Order 21 sounding his anguish. He said it was all right to cut the deficit but, he said, and it was a big but, let us find money to complete the construction of the Toxicology Centre in Saskatoon. The Member was right, Mr. Speaker. He was expressing a viewpoint shared by a number of people in this House and outside. This nonsense of cutting the deficit at the expense of basic vital public interest has no place in a modern and civilized society and in a modern Government as we consider the Government of Canada to be.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Modern?


Charles L. Caccia: We always give it the benefit of the doubt.

June 10, 1986
Supply
Environment Week was also an opportunity for the Government to say something about renewable energy and recycling, yet there was total silence on both fronts. Recycling has been wiped off the table since November, 1984. The federal Government does not say a word about it. This is a very important area of conservation. Renewable energy has also disappeared completely in the long or short-term planning of the Government. There is complete silence. Environment Week would have been the ideal week to say something about recycling and renewable energy.
There has been continuous and repetitive criticism of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) on muzzling scientists. Scientists have been criticized or muzzled by the Minister in the last six or seven months on a number of occasions. Environment Week would have been an opportunity for him to make a positive statement about the important role scientists have, along with the removal of any control and censorship of what scientists in Environment Canada have to say on a number of crucial issues.
In May, 1985-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I regret but the Hon. Member's time has expired. There is a period for questions and comments.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I share the concern, the quite honest concern I know the Hon. Member has, with respect to the environment and its problems. I was most interested in the Hon. Member's comments relating to misfueling and that whole aspect of trying to move people away from leaded gasoline to non-leaded gasoline. The Hon. Member knows very well that he was the Minister of the Environment in the former Government. I know that with his dedication to environmental matters he pressed his colleagues in the former Government to get things done to improve the environment. I would like to know why, with the great interest and the commitment the Hon. Member has to environmental matters, he was unable to get the Government, of which he was a member and in fact was the Minister of the Environment, to commit money to cleaning up the acid rain emissions coming from plants in Ontario and Quebec, specifically, Inco, Noranda and Falcon-bridge. Why was he unable to do that, and yet the present Government has made that commitment and is in the process of doing it? Why was the Hon. Member unable to take steps himself to phase out leaded gasoline and to impose the sorts of taxes he is suggesting here? Why is it that with the dedication he had to the environment he and his Government were unable to do those things when they have been done by the present Government?


Charles L. Caccia: The answer is very simple. The present Government has been able to do that which it has done because it found everything ready to implement as a result of two agreements with the provinces. I can even give the Hon. Member the dates of them, if he likes. He need only look at the
clippings of the time to see the confirmation of this in the media. In March, 1985, we made an agreement with the provinces to go ahead without the concurrence of the United States to reduce emissions by non-ferrous metals in all the provinces which are affected by those types of emissions. A public official statement was made in March, 1984. In June, 1984, the first meeting took place to implement that policy. At that time the discussion about the allocation of funds began. Discussion also began at that time on the report of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources on non-ferrous metals with regard to what the allocation would be and what the total cost of the modernization of those industries affected would be.
In that way the wheel was set in motion. When the new Government came into power, it found the wheels turning at a reasonably well-oiled speed. I invite the Hon. Member to look at the newspaper clippings of the day. These things were reported as front page material.
With regard to leaded gasoline, in December, 1983, we introduced a measure to bring lead in gasoline in Canada to the standards adopted by the EPA in the United States at that time. This was five months before the EPA in the United States introduced new standards which were much better. Had I known that the EPA was moving in that direction, perhaps we would have introduced much more stringent levels than the ones we announced in December, 1983.
Finally, with regard to misfueling, I think the Hon. Member is right. More could have been done at that time. My time and energy were spent in the process of setting up the consultation mechanism needed with industry and unions to arrive at a decision as to which new cars and models would be affected by the introduction of catalytic converters. In the summer of 1984 dates were set for consultations which took place in the fall of that year which allowed the present Government to make the announcement affecting 1988 cars.
The Hon. Member will appreciate that things do not happen overnight. They happen as a result of continuous, constructive effort. In that sense history repeats itself. One Government benefits from the work done by the previous Government.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I want to give the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) an A for effort for trying to explain the lack of any real success in any way during the time that he was Minister of the Environment. It is regrettable. No one questions his desire to have done something, but the reality is that nothing of substance was accomplished.
I have two short comments to make and then one specific question to ask. Particularly with regard to lead, the specific thing he did accomplish was having Gazetted a standard for lead. That was in 1983 and will not come into effect until January of 1987. In a four-year period the Member succeeded in suggesting that we move from .78 grams per litre to .29 grams per litre. The reality is that the level remains at about .44 grams per litre. It took him four years to even think about that, and that was the only thing of substance he was able to
June 10, 1986

accomplish during his tenure in charge of the environment of Canada. That is regrettable.
My second point relates to toxics. The Member will not have a chance to respond if I get into this too much. There is one specific example I can use. The toxicology fund of the Canadian Wildlife Service has received over $700,000 new government dollars since its inception last year. It has received an equal amount from industry and has over 21 programs. That represents $1.5 million worth of new research on behalf of wildlife in Canada. That is an example of specific additional efforts which were not even considered or thought of, and certainly not recognized, by the Member for Davenport.
My specific question is with regard to recycling. This is an example of the rhetoric of the Member for Davenport. The national recycling plan which has been sought by the recycling industry of Canada can do much to help many environmental objectives in Canada. This is something that has been actively discussed and would be part of the municipal action plan which we hope will be announced next October by the Minister responsible for the Canadian resource council and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan).


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, it is very hard to educate the Parliamentary Secretary with regard to what happened when I was in office. If he likes to engage in little fairy tales, that is his choice. I hope that one day he will grow up and look at the facts as they are rather than as he would like to see them in the distorted optics which seem to characterize his strange mentality.
With regard to his last point, the fact of the matter is that recycling was entirely wiped from the face of the federal political scene in November, 1984. I refer the Parliamentary Secretary to the statement which was made in this House in November, 1984.
With regard to the lack of real progress on lead, the announcement was made in December, 1983, to come into effect in January, 1987. The effect will be to bring the level of lead down from 0.77 to .29. That is a fact and those are the true amounts and sequences of events.
With regard to toxins, it is quite clear that the Government has a guilty conscience. It knows that that is its Achilles' Heel. The Government has taken some pretty nasty measures. It cancelled the Guelph Toxicology Centre. I think it would be politically wise for the Parliamentary Secretary to make a pitch for the resumption of the toxicology centre rather than trying to cover the tracks and creating the impression that no damage has taken place.
I would like to give the Parliamentary Secretay a quick chronology on toxicology. In October, 1984, we received the Niagara River Toxic Committee Report, a very important document. In the months following, the Guelph Toxicology Centre was shelved. In May, 1985, the former Minister of the Environment made a statement in the House about her visiting Washington to meet with Lee Thomas and to bring forward an American plan for full and speedy action on the Niagara
Supply
River. We have heard enough about the former Minister of the Environment.
In October, 1985, Lee Thomas, the head of the Environment Protection Agency, came to Ottawa with a plan, which plan has never been disclosed except south of the border. Negotiations are ongoing on this plan. Two days before the negotiations started in Washington, the Minister of the Environment for Canada decided to go public and reveal to the media and everyone else under the sun that there is a difference of opinion between him and Jim Bradley, his colleague in the Province of Ontario. I ask you whether the way to negotiate with the Americans is by giving away a disagreement among Canadians?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret but the time for questions and comments has expired. Is the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) rising on a point of order?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I just want some direction, Mr. Speaker. We are going to be here until ten o'clock tonight and I want to know exactly how we are going to proceed from now on. The 10-minute period is for short questions and comments. Some of us want to get in on this because it is interesting. No one has mentioned that we have spent $745 million with respect to the environment this year. I would like to ask a few questions about that great amount of money because it is, after all, Canadian taxpayers' money.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order, it is a matter of debate. I appreciate what the Hon. Member is saying. I would like to be as fair as I can be. If I find that the Official Opposition is speaking too much, I would like to have Members other than his party Members participate in the question and comment period. I can assure the Hon. Member that before ten o'clock he will have many opportunities to question and comment. Debate.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, what this debate is all about is the Government Estimates and its request of the House of Commons to spend $116 billion of taxpayers' money. That is a lot of money, even the Pages agree with that. We have to ask whether or not the Government is spending the money properly, whether or not there has been a fair assessment of taxes, too much waste and so on.
I believe we are seeing today a tremendous amount of waste in Government. We have the example of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) spending some $40,000 of taxpayers' money on an airplane to carry a video crew to film him while he was in western Canada. This Hercules aircraft, with a seven-man video crew, two vans, and a seven-man air crew, cost the taxpayers some $40,000. Is it right and proper to spend that kind of money glorifying the man who has the honour to be the Prime Minister of Canada? I say it is wrong and this House should not approve the Estimates as long as the Government of Canada is wasting money in that way.

June 10, 1986
Supply
This is very interesting because it was the Conservative Party that, year in and year out, criticized the former Prime Minister of this country for squandering money. I have been here since 1968 and I have heard speech after speech from the Conservatives about the excesses and extravagances of the Trudeau years. That same Party is now doubling the Prime Minister's staff and paying salaries higher than ever before for that staff as well as the staff of cabinet Ministers. It is the same Party that, as the Government, is using government aircraft to fly the Prime Minister and his family to West Palm Beach, Florida, on non-government business. Yet the Government asks us to approve Estimates totalling $116 billion. It is a waste of taxpayers' money.
[ Translation]
It is really a waste of thousands of dollars in taxpayers' money, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot agree to that kind of waste of money. This same Government came to Parliament one year ago and asked for $1 billion to bail out some banks and their depositors. The majority of that money went to other financial institutions, many of them foreign-owned. At the same time, the Government wanted to cut back on old age pensions. Is that fair? Is that just? Should we approve the Estimates when the Conservative Government is squandering $1 billion, much of it going to wealthy banks in this country and in the U.S? Two years ago the Conservatives criticized the former Government for appointing Donald Macdonald as the head of a commission on taxation to be paid $750 or $800 a day. Now this Conservative Government is paying Simon Reisman, our special negotiator on trade with the U.S., $1,000 a day plus expenses. That is the same Simon Reisman who, when he was asked about the Minister in charge of the Wheat Board, said who is Charlie Mayer? This guy is supposed to be negotiating our trade with the U.S., including agriculture. There is no industry in Canada more important than agriculture and grain farming in western Canada. Yet our chief negotiator does not know who the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board is. I think Simon Reisman's vision of this country is about as broad as he can see it from the top of the CN Tower or the Peace Tower. He does not even know the name of the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, yet this Government is paying him $1,000 a day plus expenses to negotiate on behalf of the Government and the people of Canada.
I cannot approve Estimates like this. I do not see how many of the more experienced members of the Conservative Party, my friend from Victoria being one of them, can approve this kind of waste of taxpayers' money. A thousand dollars a day plus expenses for Simon Reisman, and he does not even know who the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board is! It is either arrogance or stupidity, or maybe a combination of both. That is one of the problems we have when people who negotiate on behalf of the nation as a whole do not know it exists outside of Toronto and Ottawa. We have this kind of
waste and this kind of tax, tax, tax on ordinary people, and it is for those reasons that I cannot support the Estimates.
At the same time as the Government is paying Mr. Reisman $1,000 a day and bailing out the banks to the tune of $1 billion, the Government is increasing taxes on ordinary citizens in my constituency. I have a letter here from Mr. Tom Seeley and I will read it to the House. He wrote to me on March 30 and told me about how his mother's taxes have been increased. He says:


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have just completed my mother's income tax return and it is obvious to me that the Federal government is picking the pockets of Senior citizens.
My mother is 73 years of age and has a modest income from Old Age Security, Canada Pension Plan, interest income and royalties. Her taxable income in 1984 was $2,164 and in 1985 was $2,222. There was no tax payable in either year.
However the federal tax payable was another matter. Although my mother's taxable income rose by only $58 (approximately 2 per cent) her Federal tax payable rose from $21.00 to $127.00.
This represents a 600 per cent increase in tax payable. Although the return has not yet been checked by the taxation people, I believe this can easily be confirmed by a quick reference to the 1984 and 1985 tax tables.
Although the amount of money is quite small, it is not so small for someone on a limited income. How many of us would stand for a 600 per cent increase in tax payable from one year to the next?
I would appreciate it if you would confront the Government in regard to this inequity on behalf of my mother and all other seniors and low-income Canadians facing this situation.
Yours very truly T. Seeley
Here is a woman with a salary of a little over $2,000 a year, with a tax increase by the federal Government of 600 per cent, an increase in federal tax payable from $21 to $127. Yet at the same time the Prime Minister of Canada will fly, at taxpayers' expense, to holiday in West Palm Beach in Florida, spend $40,000 on a government Hercules and a film crew to film him as he travels throughout western Canada. At the same time the Government will pay Simon Reisman $1,000 a day plus expenses to negotiate when he does not even know who the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board is.
Can you expect us to support this kind of waste, this kind of tax, tax, tax, by the Conservative Party of Canada? No way. No wonder in my Province of Saskatchewan, the last time the Conservative Party was popular was back in the 1930s with a guy named Premier Anderson and R. B. Bennett, who was Prime Minister of Canada. They so screwed up the economy that they disappeared for 50 years. The way they are going now history is bound to repeat itself. I hope it does, because what we have now is a Government that taxes the ordinary people of Canada, the poor, the old, and the seniors of this country and gives massive breaks to rich Canadians.
I want to mention one more thing before I sit down and that is the very important sector of agriculture today. In farming today in this country in western Canada we are facing a crisis such as we have not seen since the 1930s. We have tabled in
June 10, 1986

this House last Thursday or Friday a report of a special committee on the price of domestic wheat, a unanimous report that said that we are facing a crisis that is more severe now than we have had since the 1930s. The price of wheat in this country now in 1933 dollars is at the same level as it was in 1933.
With the price of wheat so low I ask why the Government is not spending some money trying to help our farmers. Why do we not have a deficiency payment in this country that would increase farm income by $1.5	billion to	$2 billion a year?What we are seeing instead is	a drop	in	the	initial price of
wheat by 19 per cent, on barley by some 27 per cent.
What we are seeing in the	United	States	is exactly theopposite. There are massive subsidies	in	the	United States
where the American farmer is guaranteed some $6 a bushel. Our farmer is going to get between $3 and $3.50 a bushel depending upon the quality. In Europe the farmers will receive more than $6 a bushel. So I ask why, in the spending of $116 billion by the Government of Canada, we cannot support our farmers by $1.5 billion or $2 billion in terms of deficiency payments. If we do not do that, hundreds and hundreds of prairie farmers are going to go under.
The Americans have massive deficiency payments. The American Farm Bill has subsidies to American agriculture and American agricultural exports of some $52 billion U.S. in the next three years. That is $75 billion Canadian over three years, or $25 billion Canadian each and every year for the next three years. They support their agricultural sector by $25 billion Canadian each and every year. Surely to goodness we should have a deficiency payment in this country which will allow some of our farmers to stay on the land.
The other concern I have goes back to free trade. It goes back to the famous Canadian Mr. Reisman who does not even know the name of the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, who is at the public trough being paid over $1,000 a day with expenses. That same gentleman will probably try to negotiate away the Canadian agricultural sector, because free trade will hurt Canadian agriculture.
I have before me a study by the Government of Canada that says just that. It is released by External Affairs. I also have here another study done by the C. D. Howe Institute in this country, which is by no means a progressive or radical research institute. What it is saying in its study is that a free trade agreement on agriculture between the United States and Canada will certainly undermine the Canadian Wheat Board and will destroy our supply management program in dairy products and in poultry in this country. Both these studies point out the fact that things such as the Crow rate benefit under the Canadian transportation system would probably have to disappear, or certainly be radically changed.
If we had a free trade arrangement with the United States in agriculture we would see the disappearance of the poultry industry in this country. Poultry can be produced a lot cheaper in the United States than it can here. A couple of large
Supply
producers in Georgia or Kentucky can supply the entire Canadian market. All they need there is a sun roof to protect them from the sun and that is all. They do not have the same kinds of problems we have with weather. They do not have a turkey marketing board. They do not have a chicken marketing board in the United States. If we had free trade, these agencies would disappear.


Robert René de Cotret: We don't know for sure.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, he said we do not know for sure whether or not we are going to have free trade in terms of agriculture. Well, we do not know that, but here is the C. D. Howe Institute with a study saying that we are going to proceed on the assumption that there would be no exemptions, that agriculture will not be exempt, and supply management will not be exempt.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Speculation.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It might be speculation, but we speculated too that if we elected a brand new Prime Minister he would not squander the public's money.


Paul Wyatt Dick: He's not.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: "He's not" says the Member from Lanark. Yet he is spending $40,000 on a Hercules aircraft and two vans for video films.


Paul Wyatt Dick: That is half of what Trudeau spent.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That is not squandering the public's money? I would like to see the Member for Lanark-Renfrew- Carleton (Mr. Dick) get up in the House and point out where this has ever been done before by any Prime Minister in this country, be it from the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party. There is no Prime Minister that has got up in the House of Commons-


Paul Wyatt Dick: Do you want me to tell you?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I challenge the Member across the way to get up and prove to us that Prime Ministers in the past have done this. A seven-man video and sound crew, two equipment vans, a seven-man air crew and a Hercules aircraft to film the Prime Minister of this country. A tremendous ego of the boy from Baie Comeau. That is not right.


Paul Wyatt Dick: He won't let me do it. I want to tell him.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My time expires in about five minutes and I would like to see the Member from Lanark get up and tell us where this has been done before. This has not happened before.
We also have a Prime Minister who wastes money in terms of taking a government aircraft, flying off to West Palm Beach, Florida with his family. Is that right? Is that not a waste of public money? I suppose the Member from Lanark thinks that is proper. The Prime Minister of this country is well paid, can he not afford a few airplane tickets? Can he not

June 10, 1986
Supply
afford to fly his own family and himself down to West Palm Beach?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Don't give me that kind of rhetoric.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The member of the Conservative Party says, "Don't give me that kind of rhetoric". I am glad he said that. We know where the Conservative Party stands. If you can go into the public trough like an old hog or an old pig, you go into the public trough. That is what the Conservative Party is saying. They have doubled the staff in the Prime Minister's Office and they have increased the salary of their staff. That is the Conservative Party. The richer you are, the more you get.
Yet my constituent, Mrs. Seely, has her taxes increased by 600 per cent on a taxable income of $2,222 this year. That is not fair. Mrs. Seely in Yorkton had to pay more taxes this year because the Prime Minister is abusing his privileges. Her taxes went up from $21 to $127. That may pay for one minute, perhaps, in the Prime Minister's very expensive airplane as he flies his crew around. I wonder if they even had a makeup man there? That is the kind of Prime Minister we have. He is so concerned about his image. He flies around with two aircraft. Never have we seen this kind of pretense to royalty in our country that we see with this particular Prime Minister.
I understand why so many Conservatives were upset when he defeated the former Prime Minister, Mr. Joe Clark, in the leadership of that Party some three years ago. At least with him we had a person who understood ordinary Canadians, who knew what ordinary Canadians were all about. When he was Prime Minister he would not have spent some $40,000 on aircraft to fly around a film crew to take pictures of him. That is going much too far. I think there should be members of the Conservative Party in this House who will rise to their feet and speak out against this kind of abuse.
I wish we were not forced by the rules of the House to have a vote on the Estimates tonight because, with the massive Conservative majority, these Estimates are going to carry. We will see more waste of the taxpayers' money for the Prime Minister and his friends. He is putting most of his friends in the Senate or rewarding them with huge patronage appointments, which is another abuse of the taxpayers' money.
I have to report back to my constituent, Mrs. Seeley, that her taxes went up this year from $21 to $127, despite the fact that she made only a little over $2,000 in taxable income. Her taxes have gone up because the Prime Minister is squandering her money. Next year her taxes will probably increase again because the Conservative Party will spend even more money for the rich and powerful in this country.
It is like Peter Pocklington in your home province, Mr. Speaker. He is a very wealthy Conservative man who says, when he keeps the workers from negotiating a new contract at the Gainers plant in Edmonton, that the wages are too high and should be set by the free market. He believes that workers
should not be paid as much as they are, and if the free market dictates $3 or $4 an hour, that is what they should be paid. It is the same Mr. Pocklington who goes to Saskatchewan to get $10 million in subsidies and grants from the Conservative Government in Saskatchewan. Such hypocrisy! On the one hand, the free market is fine, but on the other, he is the biggest welfare bum in western Canada. He comes begging on bended knee for taxpayers' money. Once again it is people like Mrs. Seeley who are making a taxable income of $2,000 a year who are paying money for a welfare bum like Peter Pocklington.
That is what the Conservative Party is all about and that is why we must not pass these Estimates as they are. The more money we give them, the more they will spend, the greater the deficit and the more taxes there will be for Mrs. Seeley and all of her friends in the City of Yorkton.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret but the Hon. Member's time has expired. Questions or comments? Debate.


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to explain to the House, as well as to the Canadian public, how our Government is going to effectively spend $107 billion, while taking into account that we have $26 billion to pay in interests on debts incurred by our predecessors, the Liberals, and taking also into account the fact that we are going to spend $53 billion for social services. In view, therefore, of the narrow margin within which we must operate, I am pleased today to explain to the House how we will go about it.
We have a supervisory agency called the Treasury Board, and it is specifically at that level that we will make sure that our resources are properly expended, that the moneys made available to Parliament are properly administered. And that is the reason why I shall deal with major initiatives of the Government in that regard, namely, the administration of the treasury.
Before Canadians gave themselves a Conservative Government in September 1984, our leader, who is now Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), outlined the Progressive Conservative platform for a more efficient and practical administration of the affairs of the State. In the document describing the PC approach to administration, he described the steps which would have to be taken to achieve this more practical process and I quote, Mr. Speaker:
One of this Progressive Conservative Government's top priorities will be to effect changes in the administrative techniques and methods of the federal Government to ensure the best possible use of taxpayers' money. The Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board have put together a series of programs to make this objective a reality. One of the initiatives considered is a treasury administration program the purpose of which is to properly manage the funds which Canadians make available to the Government and to us as Members of Parliament. On the face of it, one could assume that the administration of the treasury is an activity which is carried out only by banks, trust funds or credit unions. Yet,
June 10, 1986

each of us administers his or her own treasury, with personal rules for acquiring and disbursing funds. Each of us is eager not to let amounts of money lie idle. Each of us tries to maximize the return on his or her money.
That is the kind of questions that this Government asked itself, and very soon after the September 1984 election, this Government moved to ensure sound management of public monies. That kind of management covers the billing, collecting and depositing of monies due to the Government, the payment of monies due by the Government and the use of Government cash balances.
Government funds are the monies that are paid to, taken out of, and that flow through the treasury. A proper management of public fund is essential because of the extent of Government revenues and expenditures and cash-flow. Funds are well managed when receivables are recovered as soon as possible and payables are only paid on their due dates. Deciding on policies to that end will help reduce that portion of the federal budget that is allotted each year to the payment of interests on the national debt.
In view of the enormous sums of money needed for the efficient running of the Canadian Government, sound management of public funds is essential to an efficient, effective management of the public treasury. The Treasury Board has informed managers in the Public Service that good management of funds was important. In the federal publication Interaction issued in April 1985, this message was sent to them: First, managers should assess their programs for savings to be made by improving the quality of the management of their funds; second, under Government requirements for control and accountability, department plans and proposals will be strictly reviewed with a view to using every opportunity for a better management of funds.
Managers in the Public Service have been encouraged to apply the proven techniques used by the private sector in the area of fund management, to the specific needs of the Government, and to use every opportunity to better manage their funds, whether payable or receivable. Ministers sitting on the Treasury Board have approved a fund management strategy as early as the beginning of 1985, another step to help the Government rapidly and decisively gain control of public expenditures. That strategy, similar to the one used in the private sector, is aimed both at increasing the size and percentage of receivables and reducing the size and percentage of payables. This does not mean that an extra burden will be laid on businesses and invidivuals. The aim is rather to meet the expectencies and requirements of our society and Canadian citizens in the area of the management of public finance.
Improved management procedures for the treasury will be applied to all Government operations, tax revenues and others, payments to suppliers, large capital expenditures, grants, contributions and transfer payments. Proper strategies and processes for each of those items will allow us to save on interest charges, to reduce our borrowing needs and reduce the deficit. In March 1985, the President of the Treasury Board
Supply
officially announced that strategy and the steps to be taken for its implementation. Moreover, the Minister of Finance has announced other steps for financial management in his budgets of May 1985 and February 1986. As a whole, those measures will allow savings of $873 million between 1985-86 and 199091.
I should like to point out to this House, Mr. Speaker, the efforts and the outstanding success of the President of the Treasury Board, the Hon. de Cotret, a prominent Quebecer who will make it possible for our Government to save $873 million during that short period. Canadians will thus have avoided an additional debt of $1 billion. We as Tories keep in mind the millions which we have to borrow while the Liberals never thought about it. Mr. Speaker, I am sure all Members will agree that this is an efficient management of the treasury.
Previously, Mr. Speaker, the departments and agencies did not take into account the monetary value of elapsed time, that is lost interest due to anticipated expenditures or late recoveries. In his 1984 annual report, the Auditor General was critical of previous governments who had failed to immediately deposit recovered funds in accounts bearing interest. The Auditor General also noted that bills were often paid before their expiry date. And how often have we heard the Auditor General criticize control procedures of the treasury under the previous Liberal government? Of course, the Auditor General cannot be charged with being partisan.
But this is no longer the case and many initiatives have been taken during the past 18 months. Management of public treasury is not longer outdated. The collection procedure,the treatment and deposit of accounts receivable have been streamlined. So is the method for making payments.
As a taxpayer and Member of Parliament, I expect that Government funds will be managed as cautiously as my own. However, the very cautiousness I am exercising is a reason to appreciate what Machiavelli wrote some 475 year ago. He had this to say: "One must conclude that wise advice from whatever source must necessarily flow from the prudence of the Prince, rather than the Prince's prudence flowing from good advice received".
Then, I will offer no advice on how the Government could still improve its management. I would rather deal with achievements to date, Mr. Speaker. In November 1984, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) announced action to improve the way the system for collecting Government debts was managed. He had this to say, and I quote: "Taxpayers or businesses which pay their debts have the right to expect that we collect from those who can afford to pay but fail to do so." The Government moved to reduce its current level of indebtedness in a way that was both fair and compassionate. This has entailed no harrassment for either individuals or businesses. No coercion was used against those who because of very unfavourable circumstances were not in a position to pay.

June 10, 1986
Supply
Such goals have been set to reduce by some $400 million the balance of our fiscal indebtedness. For that also, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister of National Revenu (Mr. Mackay) is to be commended. He arranged for those $400 million to be collected. This in turn allowed savings on government borrowings. Those goals were met last year.
Furthermore, Government payments are now made at the right time, that is neither too early nor too late, one rule only, all of which to maximize interest savings. By re-arranging anticipated Government payments, $22 million were saved on the annual budget. The number of bank acounts also was reduced; there were 1,000 under the Liberal administration, we now have 20 such bank accounts. This has meant $20-million savings on administrative costs. Crown Corporations that are not financially independent can no longer draw monies from the Treasury before they need to do so to pay their bills. Because the Government could thereby accumulate interests before paying its bills, $365 million were saved since we used the surpluses accumulated in the coffing of some Crown Corporations. More and more people who deal with the Government reduce our administrative costs by using their credit cards and charging the Government later. Thus we also avoid administrative costs.
The Government has authorized its officials who travel to now use travellers' cheques to cover expenses incurred on public business. The Government has already announced the contract to the En-Route company which will issue travel credit cards to public servants who must travel frequently. Because of this, public servants will not have to request as much in travel advances and to ask for advances as frequently as before, and this will also delay the disbursement of public funds.
Finally, many Departments have implemented their integrated financial management program to increase the potential for savings.
These are important achievements, Mr. Speaker. In addition, the Treasury Board has published a number of circulars to advise public service administrators in their management activities, such as guide lines on the collection of pending accounts, guide lines on the write-off of debts when all collection efforts have failed, guide lines on the scheduling of payments to ensure that they will be made by the expiry date, guide lines on the administrative control of Departments over the loans granted to crown corporations, and guide lines on revenue management and the collection of moneys owed to the Government.
Mr. Speaker, to conclude, I believe that all Hon. Members should applaud the concerted efforts of the Government to implement better expenditure management practices. With the monitoring of revenue collection and treasury movements, the Government is well on its way toward establishing a complete treasury management program. Hon. Members can therefore assure their constituents that the money they have entrusted to the Government is now being managed with optimum efficiency and that all Canadian taxpayers can be assured of the
optimisation of resources. We, parliamentarians, are now managing these resources. It is no longer the responsibility of the Auditor General of Canada, as used to be the case when the Liberals, were overspending and putting us into debt.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Vaudreuil.


Mr. Cadieux:: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate my colleague for an excellent speech. I have heard him deal with the new administrative techniques and methods which have been implemented by Treasury Board in accordance with the Bill introduced by the President of the Treasury Board, and I should like my colleague to elaborate perhaps on some of the practical application to this day of these administrative techniques and methods.


Gabriel Fontaine: I thank the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Cadieux) for his interest in treasury control rooted in his legal background. I imagine he wants to enhance his general knowledge and understanding in order to better serve Canadians over the next 12 years.
For your information, Mr. Speaker, I will say that the main function of Treasury Board is to ensure that the State's disbursements are made at the most appropriate time, that is to say, as late as possible in the interest of the State to save on borrowing costs.
Also, to activate as soon as possible the State's receipts, again to reduce interest costs. Through this action of the President of the Treasury Board, a fine initiative of a Progressive Conservative Member, a Quebecer at that, we will help Canadians save $893 million.
I hope my reply will satisfy the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. Here, on page 19 of the 1986-87 Estimates, we note that under the Small Businesses Loans Act, there is a major decrease in loans to small businesses between year 1984-85 and 1985-86 up to December 31. There is indeed a reduction of nearly 50 per cent, but considering that there are still three months to go before the end of the year ... For sure the signs are clear that there will be a reduction of between 25 per cent and 30 per cent either in number of loans or in dollars.
The Hon. Member is well aware that as soon as the Conservative Party came to power, the Small Businesses Loans Act was amended. This is the very first report published since the legislation was amended, and I should like to know if the Honourable Member could comment on such a reduction?


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou for giving me this opportunity to explain the difference in the small business philosophy of the Progressive Conservative Party and that of the Liberal Party.
The Progressive Conservative Party is not the kind of paternalistic and patronage-dispensing Party yours was when
June 10, 1986

you were in office and kept handing out money to people and contractors, the money our children and great grandchildren will have to repay.
We have created a climate which favours small- and medium-sized businesses, and made funds available to small business owners at 4 per cent less. We have amended the capital gains legislation to give a chance to entrepreneurs to make money and build up a heritage, therefore to become interested in promoting small- and medium-sized businesses. We have also done away with the small business stiff dividend tax. And all this, I might point out to the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou, has so encouraged small- and medium-sized business owners in the private sector that so far they have created close to 700,000 new jobs, including 125,000 in my Province of Quebec.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Supplementary questions? No questions or comments? Debate. The Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano).


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, what we just heard proves the Hon. Member doesn't know a thing about small business.
Mr. Speaker, the Small Businesses Loans Act is not a subsidy or money that is given away to companies. These are funds administered by the banks.
In spring 1985, during the debate in the House on amendments to this legislation, we already said these changes would discourage entrepreneurs from setting up new businesses, because of the conditions involved. The figures are there. They were not invented by the Opposition. They are all there in a nice blue book published by the Government under the title: "Main Estimates 1986-87". Mr. Speaker, on page 22, we see among all the other programs, that the actual number of loans under the Small Businesses Act, as of December 31, 1985, was 17,760, totalling $547,178. Mr. Speaker, for 1984-85 the actual number was 34,579, in other words, twice the number of loans granted this year and totalling $1,980 billion.
Mr. Speaker, those are their own figures. That is your answer.
Mr. Speaker, just so the Hon. Member will understand, if he has gone out and is watching television some where, he ought to know that before spring 1985, the Small Businesses Loans Act provided that any Canadian could go to a bank, if he wanted to buy land or a building, and ask for a small business loan of up to $100,000, which was 100 per cent guaranteed by the Government, subject of course to regulations and conditions, including that the loan had to be registered by the bank and be secured, while the interest rate was prime plus one.
Mr. Speaker, the only action taken by the Conservative Government for the benefit of small business came when after their first five months, they came to the House and suggested that the guarantee should not longer be 100 per cent but 85 per cent, and that from now on, Canadians would have to pay 1 per cent of the loan as a registration fee. And look at the
Supply
results, Mr. Speaker! We said at the time that they would discourage people from using ... And I think everyone will agree that small business needs financing, Mr. Speaker, but in amending the legislation, the Minister of State (Small Businesses) (Mr. Bissonnette) showed no concern whatsoever for the small business constituency for which the Minister is responsible. However, he was anxious to please the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) by reducing quite considerably any risk there might be to administering this plan. At the time, it was explained in the House that every $10,000 created a job, and any losses arising from this program, as a result of payments the Government would be unable to collect... every job would have cost about $270.
Now then, Mr. Speaker, the Small Business Loans Act happens to be one of the best mechanisms to create jobs, but the Government actually goes out of its way to make sure that small business owners will not be tempted to use it.
Mr. Speaker, about ten days ago the Minister said this, and I quote his own words in English:
"Something must be done to increase the survival rate," said the Minister of State for Small Businesses. The Minister himself is saying that something must be done to increase the survival rate. He is saying that of the 70,000 new small businesses every year, only 20 per cent survive in their first five years in business. That means a failure rate of 80 per cent. The man who has been Minister for two years is saying that something must be done.
We know that apart from being a self-made millionaire, the Minister came to this House with no experience in running government programs. Some two years after the task force we still do not know what the results are. He did not come forward with any specific programs. He is not saying that after consultation, after having travelled across the country and after having talked to people this is what we will do. Instead he is saying that something must be done. What? Perhaps the thing to do is to change the Minister. Who knows? Maybe this summer in a shuffle of cabinet members a new Minister will be appointed. Let us hope that that new Minister will have some programs with which to relieve small business in order that the small business community can look forward to having a long life and a high rate of survival in this very important sector of our economy.

As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the Minister has been touring the country for two years now at the expense of taxpayers to learn what is wrong with small business and what should be done about it. Yet after two years we still do not know whether he has learned anything through these consultations, nor whether he will announce new programs based on these consultations, or for that matter any kind of worthwhile program designed to help small business.

June 10, 1986
Supply
We Liberals have been consulting, Mr. Speaker, and we are still at it. We will soon begin the second phase. During the first phase we consulted with 3,500 companies, institutions or individuals directly involved in small business. A good many of us have responded, Mr. Speaker, and we did not work behind closed doors, we got in touch with newspaper reporters. All respondents received a copy of the results analyzed by a Canadian university. This has enabled us to learn very interesting things about which we often spoke to the Minister: Why did you not intervene in this case? Why, for example, would most respondents feel that the existing small- and medium-size business consultation mechanisms are barely satisfactory or mediocre?
That is the opinion of 71.4 per cent of respondents, whereas only 25.9 per cent think that these mechanisms are good or excellent. In any event, these figures are a clear indication that we have a problem in this field and that something has to be done. So what do they do, Mr. Speaker? Not a thing! Eighty per cent of the people surveyed believe that young people are not properly informed about opportunities in small- and medium-sized businesses. And these respondents are not young people, Mr. Speaker. One might assume that young people always think they are not getting the right information. In this case, small business people themselves are saying that our young people are poorly informed and do not get enough information. Eighty per cent is a lot. And so, what do we have? Do we see any programs being proposed by the Government to encourage these young people to create their own business? There are many young people across the country who have tremendous ideas, who would be capable of setting up small businesses, creating jobs, creating a small business that some day could become a big business ... No programs at all!
We in the Liberal Party launched a program before the election, and the first thing they did was cancel that program, Mr. Speaker. The First Chance program we launched was promptly abolished as soon as they came to power.
On the subject of small business financing, 62.1 per cent said they were not satisfied. This means that more than 6 out of 10 are showing their dissatisfaction on this particular point. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, something has to be done.
But how can we improve the situation when, as I said earlier, according to the figures in the estimates now under consideration, because of the changes in the legislation, there has been a decrease in the amounts spent for the only program we had for small businesses, namely the Small Businesses Loans Program? Banking institutions now discourage people from getting these loans because the officials of the Minister of State for Small Businesses are very demanding and the banks do not like dealing with the Government. Yet, during the electoral campaign, the Conservative Party assured us that these obstacles would be removed and the system simplified so that everyone would be able to work in peace. Now, the Government is doing the opposite.
We also asked in this survey whether people were satisfied with the services of the Federal Business Development Bank.
Unfortunately, we did not learn anything new. The facts are already known to the Minister and everyone, and the Nielsen Task Force has also considered this issue. In the survey, 65 per cent of respondents said that the Federal Business Development Bank does not meet the needs of the small business sector. During our first year in Parliament, we met with officials from the Federal Business Development Bank at the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. After discussion, the Committee wanted to review the mandate of the Bank, but because the Minister of State for Small Businesses was consulting people throughout the country, we had the courtesy to say: Let us wait before making our recommendations so that the Minister of State can consult and make an adequate proposal. However, nothing has happened since.
We also waited. Recognizing that the Nielson Task Force was looking at the same issue, we waited, but even today, Mr. Speaker, nothing is being done. In June of that year I asked the following question from the Minister of State (Small Businesses): When are you going to do something for that institution so they can be more open, more accessible, have programs that are directly related to small businesses? He answered: Yes, this summer, we will come up with a proposal. That was a year ago. I asked the same question not long ago, and I had the same answer: In July we shall have a plan. Mr. Speaker, are we to have that plan some day? Will Canadians know once and for all the policy of this Tory Government on small businesses?
Mr. Speaker, in our survey we asked whether people were satisfied with the current Small Business Loans Act, or whether they would like to have amendments, or additions to that Act. Under the current Act, money may be loaned for specific capital projects, that is for purchasing land, buildings or equipment or making rental improvements. Yes, that is so. On equipment and rental improvements, 80 per cent is loaned, and on land and buildings 10 per cent. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in most cases, the entrepreneur starting out in business must use 20 per cent of his capital to buy equipment, but equipment is only a part of an operation. There is of course inventory, other front-end expenditures, his starting salary, and with all that, with the amendments to the Act a partial garantee of 85 per cent rather than 100 per cent as before of course the banks, now responsible for those 15 per cent are seeking additional security. Therefore, the man or woman starting a business is left with a very narrow credit margin. We have asked whether Canadians would agree that under the same small business loan structure, people could get working capital just as they can get investment capital. Also those who are involved in export business. Often, Mr. Speaker, they will go to a bank and say: I have a very nice order from that foreign country, but, as you know, before I can deliver the goods, I need money to manufacture them.
If under the same Small Businesses Loans Act, it were possible to finance the contracts or future sales, 76 per cent of the people polled said: Yes, it would be great. Again, Mr. June 10, 1986

Speaker, that is something we suggested in a document over a year ago. But nothing has been done.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, I could deal with the negative impact the liability insurance crisis is having small businesses. Since November I have been raising this issue, but unfortunately they always answer yes. Again, in January, the legislation was almost ready and was forthcoming. We are now in June ... When I asked again the same question two weeks ago, I was told that we would get it by the end of June. Well, we know that by the end of June, the House will adjourn and this will probably be postponed until next fall. Let us hope so. But this is a serious problem, and small businesses cannot afford 400 per cent or 500 per cent increases. Their Government should assume its responsibility in this case. It should propose something to help our small businesses which are responsible for creating at least 80 per cent of the new jobs we need.
Earlier, the Hon. Member was bragging about the 700,000 new jobs the Government had created. Has he ever wondered how many jobs were lost over the same period of time, Mr. Speaker? It is funny, but there were a million and a half unemployed Canadians in the fall of 1984. There are still 1.3 million unemployed and we are in 1986. If we subtract 1.3 million unemployed from 1.5 million, we get 200,000 jobs; where are the 500,000 other jobs? There have been at least
500,000	jobs lost. That is nothing to write home about, really! He said: We have created 700,000 new jobs.
Mr. Speaker, we have also raised the issue of the tax system for small businesses. We wanted to know what people thought about the current tax system. We are well aware that the Government, in its last Budget, had granted small businesses a 1 per cent tax cut in 1986-87 and another 1 per cent tax cut in 1987-88. That represents a total of 2 per cent, Mr. Speaker. But to big business, the Government granted right away a 3 per cent tax cut. That's how this Government encourages small businesses.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I have here an article which states, and I quote:
But the federal Government's tax reduction is too little to mean much to people such as Brad Finigan, president of United Business of Nova Scotia Ltd., a small business organization. "We're talking about a 2 per cent saving on $10,000," he said, pointing out that most small businesses make very little money.

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member said earlier that the small business dividend distributions tax has been removed, but he forgot to say that this changed the formula used way to determine the amount of dividends. In fact, there has been no tax reduction. The same rate applies because it comes out the same if you remove this 12.5 per cent tax on dividends and at the same time change the formula used to determine the tax credit for dividends.
Supply
Mr. Speaker, this Government always acts under cover. While it may think that it is giving something, it is not. It always brags about the good things it is doing, but if we look more closely, we find that nothing much has been done.
I should like to refer to an article which appeared in the May 31, 1986 edition of The Financial Post entitled "New taxes don't bode well for our small retailers". In part it reads:
Three months after Michael Wilson unveiled his second Budget in the House of Commons, tax increases slated for the next year appear to be helping to depress consumer spending.
When added to levies from the May, 1985 Budget coming into effect this year, the new taxes do not bode well for Canada's small retailers, some observers say. Consumers, conscious of their reduced spending power, appear to be postponing purchases.
"Taking just fiscal measures, and holding everything else constant, there is clearly a dampening of consumer expenditure, and this translates into a back-off on retail trade that is fairly sizeable," says Michael McCracken, President of Ottawa-based Informetrica Ltd., economic consultants.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, you are indicating that my allotted time is nearly over. I have one minute left and I would like to say that the Government is bragging again when it says that it has created a registered pension plan for small businesses.
However, the Government forgets a very important fact, namely that the small businessman himself, his family and his associates will not be able to invest in this plan. How can the Government ask others to have confidence in small businesses when it does not have any confidence in those who believe in it, who work for it and who invest every cent they have in their own business, and when it does not allow those people to invest in their own pension plan, namely the industrial savings plan? That shows the double standard-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member. Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).


Mr. Malepart:: Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate my colleague for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) who, as usual, has made an excellent and objective speech which clearly shows his concern for the small business sector. He clearly showed the negative impact of the lack of decision and unpopular decisions of this Government.
However, I would like to hear his comments on another subject. I want to ask him what he thinks about the behaviour of the Government as concerns our senior citizens.
And my colleague for Saint-Leonard-Anjou will recall that this Government, within a period of 20 months, has made 5 negative moves against senior citizens. Whether with respect to the spouse allowance, or by discriminating against those who were single, separated or divorced; or the infamous deindexing of old age security pensions, including the 19, and everyone will recall the day Mrs. Solange Denis came to tell the Prime
14188

June 10, 1986
Supply
Minister (Mr. Mulroney) what everybody was thinking about him. Also, the cuts in employment insurance benefits for early retirees, under the guise of cutting $30 million from our expenditures, which affected 34,000 people in Canada.
Program cuts-and I know the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou is a dedicated man-projects such as community development or Canada Works projects for those who worked at home have been slashed everywhere, throughout Canada, by this Government decision. And, lately, we learned that this Government had decided to cut $3 billion from the New Horizons program budget.
I would like to hear the Hon. Member comment on those moves, as compared to what the same Government handed out-$1 billion to depositors with deposits of $60,000 or more; $1 billion to the Reichmann brothers for the Gulf-Ultramar transaction. Also the $55 million spent on changing the colours of the Armed Forces' uniforms.
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, my colleague will have comments on that. And especially the $40,000 to have our national "camera kid" on films with his family in Florida.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) for his most important question.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, over the week-end, in my constituency, I met groups of senior citizens and that question, the Government image that had been projected immediately after the May 1985 Budget, that is aimed at slashing the deficit on the backs of senior citizens, the less priviliged, while at the same time we very well know the Government has handed out $1 billion to people who had deposits of $60,000 or more in the Western banks that went under- It has given $1 billion to the Reichmann brothers. I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker. Canadians have now seen quite through this Government which deprives the poor to give to the rich. And they are afraid of that, Mr. Speaker, because it is continuing. As my colleague said, it started by deindexing old age security pensions. Then it went against workers who had agreed to take an early retirement. It is unbelievable the number of letters which we receive in our offices every day concerning early retirement. It is unacceptable that, after having planned his or her early retirement with the agreement of his or her employer, a person should be faced one morning with ... Beside everything the Minister has said, there are facts, such as a telegram dated December 30-New Year's Eve- ordering unemployment insurance offices to put a stop to that from January 5. That is Conservative justice.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions, comments. Debate. The Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise) has the floor.


Mr. Richard Grise (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, as the Member for the riding of Chambly, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate this afternoon, a debate that is directly
related to our Budget. And there is no doubt that our Budget has been very well received across Canada.
The 1986-87 Budget totals $107.4 billion, that is, $107 billion in budgetary expenditures and $0.4 billion in loans, investments and advances, which are non-budgetary items.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the figure the Hon. Member just mentioned is wrong. The Main Estimates amount to $116.74 billion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order; it is a point of debate.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It is a point of debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) seeking the floor on a separate point of order?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same matter. There is legitimate confusion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: What is the legitimate confusion?


Paul Wyatt Dick: There are two systems being used, and this is the year of the cross-over. If we use the old system, it is $107 billion; if we use the new system, it is $116 billion.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Anything to confuse Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I do not belive that this is a point of order. It is a point of debate.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It is not a point of order, but it is interesting. [Translation]


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, budgetary spending will increase 4.4 per cent over the Main Estimates for 1985-86. However, thanks to the additional cutback of $500 million announced in the Budget, the increase is only 3.9 per cent. The growth rate of the Main Estimates is the lowest... perhaps the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier would care to listen ... is the lowest recorded in the last 24 years, Mr. Speaker. Nonstatutory or discretionary spending increased 1.5 per cent. The $500 million cutback has reduced this increase to 0.2 per cent, the same as for the previous year. This is the first time since the immediate post-Korean War period that such a low rate of growth in the Government's operating expenditures has been achieved two years in a row. That is management, Mr. Speaker!
Spending on external defence aid has been increased substantially to honour our international commitments. Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that as a country that is very involved in NATO, we have a duty to maintain our agreements with
June 10, 1986

NATO members, and that is why we have increased our spending on national defence. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, when we increase our spending on national defence, that money is invested here and creates more jobs while saving Canadians money.
Except for these expenditures, discretionary outlays decrease by 2.5 per cent in the Main Estimates, or 4.2 per cent if we take into account the $500 million cut-back. The 5,500 person-years reduction, 2.1 per cent, will mean savings of $150 million in 1986-87. Once the 15,000 person-years decrease is achieved in 1990-91, cumulative savings will amount to $1.5 billion and the annual $500 million savings will continue. These measures, along with others taken over the past 18 months, will cut down projected expenditures and yield additional non-tax revenues of about $6 billion in 1985-86 and $8 billion more in 1986-87.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will allow me to focus on some of the highlights which stem directly from our Budget statements. First of all, let me refer to transfer payments to the provinces, territories and municipalities. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Section 36 of the Constitutional Act, 1982, the equalization program is aimed at ensuring that provincial Governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public service within an equally reasonable level of equalization. Equalization payments in Canada are based on a comparison of per capita production or of the yield of provincial standardized tax bases.
Provinces having a less than standard capacity to derive revenues from their taxpayers are entitled to equalization payments to make up the difference. The present equalization formula takes into account practically all sources of revenue of provincial and municipal Governments. The standard is determined by the average fiscal capacity of the five provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.
The Main Estimates for 1986-87 provides $5.4 billion for equalization payments. Furthermore, in 1986-87, an additional $65 million will be paid to Manitoba under the Supplementary Equalization Payments Act.
The oldest fiscal transfer payments are the subsidies paid to each province under the terms of Confederation. These payments which include a support subsidy for the provincial legislatures, a per capita subsidy, a subsidy for debt reduction and certain special subsidies, are expected to total $36 million in 1986-1987.
Under reciprocal taxation agreements that came into effect on October 1, 1977, eight provinces have agreed to pay federal sales tax when purchasing goods and services, and the federal Government pays them to compensate for similar provincial taxes and duties payable on such purchases. The four Atlantic provinces and Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and British
Supply
Columbia signed these agreements for which the Main Estimates for 1986-1987 provide the sum of $263 million.
Under the Public Utilities Income Transfer Act, the federal Government pays the provinces 95 per cent of federal income tax collected from private companies that distribute, or produce for the purposes of distributing, electric power, gas and steam to the public. The amount payable in 1986-87 should be about $290 million, including adjustments for previous years.
Mr. Speaker, under agreements with the Territories, the federal Government offers the territorial Governments operating and capital subsidies to help them finance their various programs.
Mr. Speaker, the various highlights of the Main Estimates include the federal contributions for the financing of health care and post-secondary education, under the Established Programs Financing agreements.
Mr. Speaker, under part VI of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-secondary and Health Contributions Act, 1977, the federal Government makes contributions to the funding of insured health services, supplementary health services and post-secondary education. For the cash portion of payments under the program, the Main Estimates for 1986-87 provide for a total of $9.2 billion, including $5.7 billion for insured health services and $2.4 billion for post-secondary education. A further $1.1 billion is provided for the supplementary health services program. The Government also provides $7.5 billion in the form of fiscal transfers, which represent 13.5 individual income tax points and 1 corporate income tax point. Of that amount, $486 million will be transferred to the provinces under the equalization program.
There are also, Mr. Speaker, transfers for specific purposes. To that end, under the Canada Assistance Plan, the federal Government shares equally with the Provinces in the cost of income guarantee and social services. The Main Estimates for 1986-1987 allot $4.1 billion for that purpose. In addition, $400 million will go to Quebec as a fiscal transfer under the opting-out agreements.
Other health and welfare programs are also included, such as work rehabilitation for the handicapped and also programs relating to the health and welfare of Indians. There is also, of course, payments to the Provinces under the prescribed formula for certain other discretionary programs such as the Official Languages programs to education.
The federal Government also agreed with the Provinces and Territories to share the cost it is assuming for legal aid under the Young Offenders Act. I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not refer to very important programs such as crop insurance in certain parts of Canada. Also, various transportation programs such as highways, ferry services and a number of other transport services.

June 10, 1986
Supply
Another item of significance is Justice, because there are programs, including federal help to the Provinces for compensating victims of violent crimes and for legal aid in criminal matters.
Mr. Speaker, it is also clear that within the estimates and budget expenditures there is an item that is extremely important-the size of the Public Service.
In the budget of May 23, 1985, the Minister of Finance announced targeted reductions of up to 15,000 person-years in the Public Service coming under the Treasury Board. Those reductions to be spread out over a 5-year period will take effect in 1986-87, and they represent a 2 per cent reduction of the 258,222 person-years indicated in the 1985-86 main estimates and will be carried on at the rate of 1 per cent per year up to 1990-91. In 1986-87, those reductions will reduce expenditures by some $ 150 million to be applied to reducing the deficit and in 1990, when the targeted reduction of 15,000 person-years will be reached, the cumulative savings will be over $1.5 billion so that recurrent annual savings will be about half a billion dollars.
Mr. Speaker, the Government is trying to reduce the size and cost of the permanent Public Service needed to provide federal programs while making sure that essential functions of the Government, such as services dispensed to the public, roads and security services are maintained. Reductions will be achieved by increasing productivity and privatizing some of the federal operations and, if this proves viable, by contracting out other operations. The moves proposed by the Task Force reviewing the programs will go on helpings the Government identify areas which may warrant person-year reductions by reason of program duplication, overlapping or redundancy.
In that context, every possible effort to achieve reductions by attrition have been and will continue to be made. Innovative staff adjustment policies concurred in by public service unions before their implementation in 1985 will help minimize redundancies.
In the Main Estimates for 1986-1987, the Treasury Board approved 252,731 person-years. This is a 5,491 person-year reduction, or 2.13 per cent from the Main Estimates for 19851986. Accordingly, there remains an extra 9,500-odd person-year reduction to be carried out over the next four years.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) has decided to put under separate control, starting in fiscal year 1986-1987, part of the person-years authorized for the RCMP, including members appointed under the RCMP Act. As in the case of military personnel, that section of the RCMP is not subjected to the major acts governing the Public Service, such as the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act, or the Public Service Superannuation Act, and will therefore no longer be included in the person-year base controlled by Treasury Board.
Mr. Speaker, in view of that change, the number of person-years authorized in the Main Estimates for 1986-1987 totals 236,526, excluding the RCMP's 16,205 authorized personyears. In spite of that adjustment, the Government still intends to reach its targeted reduction of 15,000 person-years over the next five years. As previously stated, some 9,500 person-years still have to be dropped from the Public Service and this can be done with a 1 per cent yearly reduction from the 1986-87 base during the forthcoming four years.
The Treasury Board will continue to see that all person-years to be approved for provision in the supplementary estimates for a given financial year but exceeding the targeted reduction are compensated during the same financial year by the removal of authorized person-years elsewhere in the Public Service. As announced by the President of the Treasury Board in his statement made on January 17, 1986, on the impact of the reduction in person-years, steps have been taken to lessen as much as possible the effect of those restrictions on employees. In that respect, it is still considered that no more than 700 employees could be laid off in 1986-87, but every effort is being made to reduce that number to a minimum.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that we cannot ignore in those excellent main estimates, the improvement in Government management. A number of steps have been taken during the past 18 months to improve management with respect to staff, programs and assets in the Public Service. Those measures reflect not only the present efforts which are made to promote economic renewal and reduce the deficit, but also the commitment of the Government to have productive management in government one of its top priorities. The most tangible evidence of those administrative measures is the substantial reduction of expenditures and the increase in revenues which occurred as a result of the promise to reduce the deficit and to manage more effectively federal programs and agencies.
Finally in a more general way, the various steps taken by the Government to improve its management during the last year and a half will have extensive consequences during the years to come on the development of human and financial resources in the Government as well as on the distribution of resources to federal programs and agencies.
Altogether, these policies will provide a general framework within which public managers will find means and incentives for an economical and efficient management of the taxpayers'money.
On Defence spending, Mr. Speaker, let us look into that comprehensive review of federal programs undertaken by the task force under the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) which was mandated to identify overlap areas as well as any possible ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of federal programs.
My time is limited now, Mr. Speaker, but you know, I could go on and on speaking about the improved efficiency in the management of public funds which occurred since the Conservative Government took power in September 1984. I could dwell as well for a long time on our last Budget which
June 10, 1986

received a warm welcome from the Canadian people and more specifically, from my constituents in the riding of Chambly-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise) for such an eloquent speech which was prepared by officials-by the way, he did not seem to quite understand what he was talking about-
The Member congratulates his government for having so successfully managed ... I am sure this does not appear in the notes prepared by the officials-but I would like to know what he thinks of the $40,000 used by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to play the "camera kid", to have his and his family's pictures taken in Florida.
What does he think about his Government's decision to adopt a bill for the purpose of using $1 billion of Canadian taxpayers' money to bail out the depositors of $60,000 or more, while at the same time reducing by $55 millions the indexation of family allowances which benefit middle and low income families.
Moreover, what does he think of his Government's sound management in view of the cost involved in President Reagan's visit to Quebec City and the fact that as far as the Prime Minister was concerned, the sky was the limit! And what about the expenses incurred during the Queen's visit and during the visit of the President of France? What about the expenses incurred by the Prime Minister during his visit to Paris, when he had to grant a scholarship to appear on the front page. And what about the other time in England when he asked to be photographed with Her Majesty, the Queen?
What I would like to know is this: in his opinion do the unfair cuts suffered by the elderly, and all the money given to the rich, represent what he calls sound management? If that is the case, the Member has the right to defend the rich and to crush the poor!


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, of course we had to expect such comments to hear other comments from the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart). However, I wonder where was this great champion of Family Allowances indexing when the vote was taken since for the Member for Montreal- Saint-Marie was surely not in the House.
He might have been, under fairer skies, as we say at this time of the year.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member talks about cuts, reductions and so on. Nonetheless, over 630,000 jobs have been created in Canada since September 1984.
Earlier, I also listened to the questions asked by the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano), about small businesses. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, where this Member has been for the last 18 months. It is unbelievable what is going on, Mr. Speaker in the Chambly riding for instance,
Supply
where new small businesses have so far created more than a thousand jobs. Just in a riding considered to be a mere dormitory town of the City of Montreal, over a thousand permanent jobs have now been created by new small businesses.
Even though the Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou and the Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie claim to have been touring extensively the whole province of Quebec, they surely forgot to visit the Beauce area where new industries spring up every day, thereby creating new jobs.
Mr. Speaker, if this is a mismanaged economy, if it is bad management on the part of the Government, you can rest assured that I will keep on supporting such a policy. Mind you, business management was an easy task for the previous Liberal Government especially with interest rates of 21, 22 or 23 per cent? Yes, Mr. Speaker, I lived through it. I know what it is. We were considered bad managers and the Government a good manager which was no problem with interest rates of 21, 22 or 23 per cent. That was fine. The unemployment rate was high and had a record number of bankruptcies, particularly in Quebec as well as is the whole of Canada. It is incredible what the federal Government came up with over the last seven or eight years.
Great programs were created such as the one Urea Formaldehyde. The Canadian people certainly did not suffer from it because that was about what they called good management. When the Postmaster General said to Canadians and particularly Quebec businessmen and businesswomen: "If you need Canada Post to earn a living, you are not good managers." This is how the previous Government treated them. But things have changed since September 4, 1984. Jobs are being created, we see new industries being established in Quebec, in Montreal, particularly in the east end, and the trend is going to continue.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the Hon. Member if it was his understanding that between 1974 and 1984 the Liberal Government increased its spending Estimates year over year by more than 10 per cent on average. The highest single year increase, year over year, was the one following the last Budget of the now Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner). That provided for a 38 per cent increase as opposed to a 3.9 per cent increase during the good management years of a Conservative Government.


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Parliamentary Secretary, and in view of what I said a few minutes ago, there is absolutely no doubt that this Government is a sound manager. The increase in the Estimates was much higher during the previous Government's term in office. In fact, the rate of increase in the Main Estimates for this year is the lowest of the last 24 years. You have to go back to the years following the Korean War to find such a low increase for two

June 10, 1986
Supply
years in a row. This is sound management by a sound Government.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise) criticized the situation in 1979. Can he tell me why-if the Liberals were so bad in 1979-he was a candidate at a Liberal Convention and was defeated? Does he not look today as a wet blanket, for having been defeated at a convention? He switched party but he does really have the people's interests at heart.


Richard Grisé: Once again, Mr. Speaker, we see very clearly that when one has to face reality, to face actual facts proving the good management practices of a positive Government, one that works well ... Some people tried to belittle it in the last election by creating fears, by telling people that if they voted for the Conservative Party, the elderly would lose their old age pensions, Mr. Speaker. Since September, 1984, old age benefits have been raised. We will continue to raise them.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Why don't you answer my questions?


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, it is so difficult for the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) to recognize a positive fact when he sees one that he can't help but run away and being resistant to anything positive.


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


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa-Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in this debate on the Main Estimates. Today we are considering the $100 billion in the Government's Main Estimates. In fact, I see this as an opportunity to talk about the situation in Quebec. I know the previous speaker talked about good news for Quebec. It may be the Opposition perspective to see the problems that still exist in Quebec's economy, and I think we have a duty to ask, not just in the House but across Canada: How can a Government with 57 Members from Quebec have done so little to restructure and strenghten the economy of a province that is so important to our Confederation?
Mr. Speaker, as you may know, according to the latest polls Quebecers indicate they are so dissatisfied with the performance of the Mulroney Government and their 57 Government Members, that they have dropped the Conservatives to third in the ratings. The Conservatives now have 28 per cent; the New Democrats, Mr. Speaker, for the first time in the history of our party in Quebec, have 30 per cent; and the Liberals, even if they are leading, have been unable to recover the strength they have traditionally had in Quebec, owing to the lack of leadership of their Leader, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner), and also because of the problem Quebecers still have with the way the Liberals governed when they were in power.
Perhaps I may give an example to show how Quebec compares with the rest of the country. Although unemployment in Quebec has dropped since September 1984, the unemployment rate is still 10.6 per cent, compared with a national average of 9.6 per cent. How does it compare with its neighbour, the province of Ontario, where I come from? In Ontario, the unemployment rate has dropped to 6.9 per cent. Interestingly, Mr. Speaker, in Ontario, the unemployment rate in Toronto Metro is 5.8 per cent, 1 per cent below the provincial average. However, Quebec's largest city, Montreal, has an unemployment rate that continues to hover at 10.7 per cent, with 160,000 unemployed in the metropolitan area and an unemployment rate above the provincial average.
How does Montreal compare with the rest, with the other industrialized cities in central Canada? Well, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned Toronto with 5.8 per cent, Windsor with 7.4 per cent, Hamilton with 5.1 per cent, and even my own City of Ottawa which is experiencing economic difficulties thanks to Government cut-backs and problems at the Technological Institute, the unemployment rate in Ottawa stands at 8.8 per cent.
We have real problems and we are wondering: As mentioned by the Hon. Member who just spoke, is Government management really all that good?
Recently, Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago, some 2,000 shipyard workers of Sorel's Marine Industries marched on Parliament Hill to express their concern about Government mismanagement of the shipbuilding industry, particularly as a result of something which occurred this year. The former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, Mr. Stevens, the Minister of State (Small Businesses) (Mr. Bissonnette), and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) gave Versatile Vickers Company President Peter Paul Saunders, who comes from Vancouver but happens to be the head of two of the three Quebec shipyards-
They gave Mr. Saunders a mandate to rationalize the shipbuilding industry in the province of Quebec. When Marine Industries workers came to Ottawa, they expressed concern about the letter sent to the Quebec Minister of Industry, Mr. Johnson, in which Mr. Saunders said bluntly that he was given that mandate and that Marine Industries shipyards should be closed. The owner of two of Quebec shipyards proposed the closing of a third shipyard and its conversion to heavy industry. Apparently, there are no shipbuilding contracts.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Small Businesses told them that Mr. Saunders had no mandate from the Government to rationalize the industry. However, a few days later, the Minister of Industry said the opposite. The two Ministers contradicted each other and have not been able to get their act together. We asked the Quebec Minister of Transportation, who is the Acting Minister for that very important department, to withdraw the mandate given to Mr. Saunders because of an obvious conflict of interest, and to consult all parties involved, the three shipyards, as Marine Industries was never
June 10, 1986

consulted by Mr. Saunders who did not follow the recommendation of the Quebec Government and made his own planning without any consultation. The Quebec Government, the Federal Government, the unions, the Lauzon, Sorel and Montreal East boards of trade should all be consulted. That is what we proposed; it would have been proper management, but instead the Government ignored the fact that they put the future of an important industry, an industry which lost already about half its manpower because of a lack of jobs, of a lack of work ... Instead of putting things on a sound basis, they kept trusting Mr. Sanders. I ask the question, Mr. Speaker: Does the Government really know what is good management of the Quebec economy? We can think for instance about the issue of free trade. Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues in the House may be aware of the fact that the Government of Quebec made in-depth studies on the impact of free trade on the manufacturing sector in Quebec, and what did they find out? They found, Mr. Speaker, that on the whole, free trade would have negative effects on 12 important sectors affecting about 200-


Mr. Champagne (Champlain):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. The Hon. Member for Champlain on a point of order.


Michel Champagne: Mr. Speaker, you will correct me if I am wrong, but we are talking about the Estimates, and I do not think free trade or my honourable colleague's perception of the negotiations on free trade, are relevant in this debate. I would like him to address the Estimates and not free trade.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. It is not a point of order, it is a point of debate.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your excellent ruling.
I would remind the Hon. Member that Mr. Reismann, who is the ambassador for the negotiations on free trade, receives now a salary of $1,000 a day, or $5,000 a week. That means that in the space of one week, he earns more than two young unemployed Quebecers who are forced to live on welfare payments of $145 a month from the Quebec government. The salary he gets in a week is effectively the equivalent of what is paid to, not two, but three of those young forgotten workers of Quebec who are the victims of an incredible and permanent unemployment. Such are the priorities of this government!
The government of Quebec, Mr. Speaker-and I am referring to its study since those of the federal Government have not been released to the public-found out that about
230,000	jobs in two key industries would be affected by the free trade pact, in a negative way. Now, negative results are
Supply
foreseen in two sectors and finally, positive effects in four sectors for a total of 30,000 jobs. We can ask ourselves, Mr. Speaker: Will the expansion in non-metal mineral products, sport equipment, tiling and aluminum industries and in the wood industry offer enough opportunities for Quebec to offset the negative effects of free trade on the textile and clothing industries, on industrial machinery manufacturing, shoes, printing, jewellery, instrument making, rubber products, electrical products, data processing, primary metal industries, furniture and machinery industries?
Those are the results, Mr. Speaker, those are the industries which will be negatively affected by free trade, by the impact of free trade on the manufacturing economy of Quebec.
We can also ask ourselves whether the Government, during its first 21 months and with its enormous support in Quebec, really cared about the real problems of Quebec. I would say that in many areas the answer is no.
I recall, Mr. Speaker, that on numerous occasions the New Democratic Party has raised the question of the textile and clothing industry, the problem of the loss of employment, as in just four years, since 1981, this industry has lost 13,000 jobs in Quebec alone. Half of the industry is located in Quebec. A secret study done by the Quebec Government shows that free trade will mean the loss of some 30,000 jobs in the textile and clothing industry of that province. I know, Mr. Speaker, that we might be able to make some adjustments, but can we see a way by which free trade in the textile industry, already threatened by imports could not only keep those 30,000 jobs which are in jeopardy, but actually create new employment opportunities? I would say no. Here is one single industry where the loss of jobs will be equivalent to all the gains which will be made in other industries as a result of the free trade agreement proposed by the Government of the Prime Minister.
Are these the changes that Quebecers sought when they ousted the Liberals and helped elect a Conservative Government with a 211 seat majority? It was 212, but there was a slight adjustment recently. Was that the change they had in mind? I don't think so. I believe Quebecers actually wanted a Goverment concerned with economic progress in the whole province of Quebec, in every area of the province, a Government concerned with all the industries threatened by international problems. However, what has the Government been doing for instance with respect to the footwear industry? Almost half of the 8,000 workers, men and women, employed by the footwear industry in Canada are found in Quebec, and their jobs are jeopardized by the removal of quotas.
Mr. Speaker, those quotas were not removed by the previous Liberal Government, but by the Mulroney Government.
Now, did the Government really consider the impact on those jobs in the province of Quebec? Apparently not, as those quotas were removed, Mr. Speaker, with a negative impact on

June 10, 1986
Supply
a major Quebec industry. They began last Fall lifting quotas on some types of footwear.
The survey of textile and clothing industries carried out by the Federal Government has shown that the decline or wiping out of manufacturing activities in medium-sized cities would create a vacuum that would be hard to fill. Yet, almost 80 per cent of all the towns with 10,000 people or more have textile activities, especially in Quebec, Mr. Speaker.
I travelled personally to Sherbrooke, to Magog, and I went through Saint-Jean and other communities in the Richelieu area which depend on the textile and clothing industry-
Since my visit last year, Mr. Speaker, some of the plants I saw have had either to close their doors or else to reduce substantially their workforce because of competition from imports.
Mr. Speaker, what is the Government doing about the textile industry? We have been waiting for a textile policy for one year. We thought that the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion had been able to convince the Minister of Finance to accept a policy which would preserve this industry of great importance for Quebec. However, the Minister had to resign because of problems unrelated to the situation in Quebec.
Has his successor given any priority to this matter? Apparently not, since we are now near the end of June. People in the industry no longer know whether they should invest and try to find new markets or continue this contraction of the industry because of their experience of the last few years.
Mr. Speaker, nothing is being done in the shipbuilding industry. The future of a major shipyard has been entrusted to the president of the other two shipyards in Quebec. Without any call for tenders, a SI30 million contract has been given to the Lauzon shipyard. There was no opportunity for others to compete.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who spoke earlier mentioned the situation in Eastern Montreal. We have to wonder why, if Canadair has to be privatised, the Government did not ensure that the purchaser of Canadair would be a Quebec company. Why did the Government allow Montreal to lose its fourth oil refinery with the closure of Gulf? This brings the total of jobs lost in Eastern Montreal since 1982 to 1,700. Why have over 7,000 jobs been lost in Eastern Montreal since 1982 and why are 5,000 more jobs being threatened?
Mr. Speaker, why did this new Government, which had promised change, do nothing to develop a Canadian purchasing policy which could help companies such as Bombardier, Canadian Steel Wheel and Canadian Steel Foundries, which are all located in Eastern Montreal and which are all threatened in the short or the long term by a shortage of contracts?
Mr. Speaker, how is it that since October, 1985, the Montreal East area has lost approximately 2,400 industrial jobs, and that the Advisory Committee has not yet made
public its recommendations which could start addressing the problem?
Mr. Speaker, how is it that the Treasury Board which is to award contracts by the end of June for the maintenance of its F-18 fleet has done nothing to make sure that these contracts go to Quebec and ensure the survival of the Spar Aerospace industry in that area?
If I ask all these questions, Mr. Speaker, it is because we, in the New Democratic Party, strongly believe that the time has come for a development policy not only for the city of Montreal or the Quebec area, but for all regions in the Province of Quebec.
Last year, our task force on employment visited all parts of Quebec. We saw just how much initiatives there is at the level of private contractors, cities, industrial commissions, boards of trade, unions. Mr. Speaker, this initiative should be used to develop in Quebec a truly exciting economy, with an unemployment level similar to that of Ontario, with a growth rate comparable to that of the rest of the country, because it is neither desirable nor necessary for Quebec to have a depressed economy when the rest of Canada is starting to recover.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Comments. The Hon. Member for Abitibi (Mr. St. Julien) has the floor.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre. He talked a lot about Quebec and mentioned that his task force had visited all parts of "La belle province". I am sorry, but I represent a riding covering an area of 740,000 square kilometres. I have never seen him. I have never seen the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre in Abitibi and I have never seen his task force either.
To return to free trade, it is unfortunate, but recently, Mr. Parizeau, a former PQ Member, stated that free trade would benefit Quebec because Quebecers are ready to meet competition head on. And to return to his study which referred ... When he said that a study had been prepared in Quebec, I should like him to indicate what study he is talking about. I know that recently secret information has been made public in a magazine, but it has nothing to do with a report prepared by the Government of Quebec, it comes from a private study. But I would like him to tell me where he got his information.
Turning to various sectors, he did not mention the forest sector in Quebec and the $300 million agreements between Quebec and Ottawa; he did not mention either the tourism sector and the $100 million agreements between Quebec and Ottawa. This is dialogue, I point out to the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre. This is the first time after a good number of years that a Government sets about dialoguing with its constituents and with working groups.
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre were to visit Abitibi, he would find after a year that all is going fine. We do have some chance mishaps, some strikes, that's normal. I was once president of a union. Strikes
June 10, 1986

are normal; they just happen. As recently as last week, we had problems in Abitibi, forest fires. This slows down forest harvesting.
However, Mr. Speaker, I note that we are ready to face competition; even the businessmen in our area's forest industry are telling us that we are really ready to face up to competition. I could remind the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre, Mr. Speaker, that we had to deal with a deficit in Canada. But it's in the past now. We are forging ahead, I am telling the Hon. Member.
Canada is now blessed with a really dynamic Prime Minister who will help us.
Mr. Speaker, I would really like the Hon. Member to tell us where he got his information when he referred to Quebec.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know how difficult it is to get sound information on the studies concerning free trade since his own Government refuses to share its findings with the people of Quebec and with the people of the rest of the country. They do not trust Canadian men and women enough to let them see for themselves if and how they will be affected.
I willingly accept his invitation to pay him a visit in the Abitibi. He is right to say that until now we have not been able to send anyone in the Abitibi, except that the provincial NDP leader for Quebec went to the Abitibi during the election campaign and the Hon. Member well knows that now, even at the provincial level, the NDP has become as we know the third party or even the second. We trail behind the other two provincial parties, but are well ahead of the Progressive Conservative Party at the provincial level, with the support of 120 per cent of the Quebec people according to the last poll. This was the first poll in Quebec indicating the voting preferences at the provincial level for the NDP.
Mr. Speaker, I notice... The Hon. Member says that the people of Quebec are looking forward to free trade. Now, I think that they are trying to sell something that can cause them great harm.
And I point out to the Hon. Member that many groups un Quebec have stated their concerns about the matter, such as the Quebec Lumber Manufacturers Association which includes several companies in his own area, the Federation of Metal Trades, the members of the C.N.T.U. the International Ladies' Garment Workers'Union, the National Action Committee on the Status of Woman, the Shoe Manufacturers' Association, the Brewers Association of Quebec, the QFL or Quebec Federation of Labour, the Federation des femmes du Quebec, a very important group in that Province, the Centrale de I'enseignement du Quebec, the affiliated trade unions of the C.N.T.U. and the Union des producteurs agricoles.
Mr. Speaker, when one is aware of the conditions in which Quebec workers work and deal with their employers and the Boards of Trade, with respect to important issues relating to
Supply
every aspect of the community, then the views of those people are quite important.


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, I am outraged at the insinuating blabbering of the socialist Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) concerning Quebec. He should have stayed there longer than his first year of classical studies in 1955. Speaking of surveys, I will tell you that in Quebec there is not one New Democratic Party Member. That is a survey. No socialist in Quebec. No socialist in Newfoundland. No socialist in New Brunswick. No socialist in Prince Edward Island. No socialist in Nova Scotia, and there are not going to be any either. And as far as Quebec is concerned, despite what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said against Mr. Bourassa who called him a "hot dog eater", and notwithstanding the suggestion made by the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) that there are 135,000 people in Quebec who would not be able to adapt to free trade, the situation is good in Quebec. Unemployment has decreased by 3 per cent since September 1984.
There are 125,000 new jobs. The Hon. Member narrowed the issue down to shipyards, although $108 billion are involved.
In the constituency of Levis there are $435 million worth of contracts signed by this Government with shipyards. I have to tell the House about it. And if he knows that much about Quebec, he should know that Premier Bourassa and the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Macdonald) have recently gone on record as supporting free-trade. Quebec exports $14 billion worth of products, 70 per cent of which to the United States. This also he should have learned, in the mere 10 months he stayed in Quebec.
Therefore you have no authority to speak on behalf of Quebec. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I have no question to ask that Socialist Party Member, who I fear is not qualified to answer sincerely.


Michael Morris Cassidy: After that comment by the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine), I can tell him I am proud of being a social democrat and a Member of a party with a strong tradition in this country, in Canada, a party which gave Canadians medicare, which fought to establish the first retirement pension for-
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the Hon. Member's gesture is not shown on TV, because it reflects the opinion he has of the 30 per cent of Quebecers, the 34 per cent of Frenchspeaking Quebecers who support the socialist party, the New Democratic Party. As he will know, because the popular support given the NDP is stronger in the Quebec City area, comes the next election his constituency will probably elect one of the first New Democratic Members in the Province of Quebec.


Gabriel Fontaine: I did beat your leader in Quebec!

June 10, 1986
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time for questions and comments has now terminated. Debate.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, the spending Estimates of the Governmemt reflect priorities which are dangerously confused and mischievous. The Tories ask, of course, what our priorities are. I suggest that what should concern them, especially because they are the Government, and what should concern us as our highest priority as a nation is the maintenance of our independence, culture and sovereignty. I suggest that what should concern the Government above all is our ability to compete in a very competitive world market where technology and productivity based on research and a highly educated and flexible population are vital. I would suggest that a very high priority for the Government should be to ensure that our future is one of greatness and hope in a countrywhere Canadians from all regions will have the same opportunities.
The Government is spending over $116 billion of taxpayers' money, but in all that spending it is holding back on our research, our future research and on the kind of education we must have to be able to compete in a trade war which goes on throughout the world. The Government is holding back on our youth and on our Canadian heritage and certainly holding back in terms of our future. If some foreign agents were to report on how to undermine and destroy Canada, they could not come up with a better plan than this Government's approach to our youth, our educational system and our research. If the Government had not proven its total incompetence already in a host of areas, one would think we were in the hands of our enemies.
The Conservatives promised before they were elected that they would ensure that these areas of which I am speaking, research, competitiveness and productivity, would be their main concern. They promised they would build on this and it would be our strength. Instead, practically the first thing the Conservatives did upon coming to power, in the name of economy and cutting back on the deficit, was to cut our future. When the Tories were asked by the Canadian Association of University Teachers what their intentions were, if they were elected, with respect to transfers from the federal Government to the provinces, the Tories replied in an official statement: "We are committed to sustaining the current federal financial commitment according to the formula set out in the 1977 agreement". Quite understandably, the Association of University Teachers suspected that politicians might be speaking out of both sides of their mouths and in order to nail them to the wall, the Association asked them a second question: "Does your Conservative Party support the continuation of the established programs financing Act in its present form in so far as it deals with post-secondary education?" The Tories replied: "Yes, we support fully the original 1977 funding formula and the legislation provided for it". In the
spending Estimates we find that the Tories have broken that promise, torn it up into shredded paper. The promise was not worth the paper it was written on. In Bill C-96 the Government proceeded to break that formula it promised solemnly in the two answers I just quoted. Those answers, I might add, came from the Leader of the Conservatives, now the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), through Members of Parliament saying that the Government would not change the formula but would continue to support post-secondary education along the lines of the formula already laid down. The Government broke that promise. It not only broke the promise but what is worse, it broke the agreement established between the federal and provincial Governments which is to expire in March, 1987. The Government not only broke its promise that it would not change the formula but even it broke the agreement with respect to the existing formula made by a previous Government. One would think that members of the Government would be very embarrassed by all that. However, they have explained it away by saying: "We had to do it for the sake of the deficit; we had to cut the deficit".
That is totally misleading the Canadian people because the deficit is not being cut. The cuts are being placed on to the backs of the provinces. It is the provinces which now have to try to make up for the cuts that the federal Government has imposed upon them. Government Members have broken their promises to teachers, students and to the provinces. They have solved their deficit problems by putting them on to the backs of the provinces. That is not a solution; it is just plain cavalier. It is misleading and dishonest.
They also promised that they would uphold the formula for post-secondary education. They made such promises in various speeches. For example, the Hon. Member for Brandon- Souris (Mr. Clark) said that we need more consultation with the provinces and the development of a national education strategy. He said that above all we must understand that this is not the time to reduce in any way the vital resources which the federal Government has been transferring to the provinces. That is the type of speech made by the Prime Minister and members of his Party when they wanted to be elected before the last election. They have broken their promises and their agreements.
I believe it is important for us to understand that not only did they make promises in areas regarding our future and broke them, but they also promised more research and development. One of the major concerns we have as a nation in a competitive and technological age is to have good research and development. At the present time our country is not at the level promised by the Tories; that is, 2.5 per cent of GNP in regard to research and development. Rather, it is around 1.3 per cent, about half of what the Tories promised it would be. No advances are being made in terms of research and development. In fact, we are going backward. While Japan, France, Germany and the United States are at the 2.5 per cent level, Canada is still at the level of 1.3 per cent. Japan is considering
June 10, 1986

pushing its research and development goal up to 8 per cent. We are going in the opposite direction. I say that because the Government promised the universities, the business community and the intellectual community that it would do something about increasing grants to different research councils in Canada. The grants which were promised to be increased were not increased, except at the rate of inflation. That is how the Government has dealt with those boards which give out grants. It was promised that there would be assistance in terms of great increases since, as members of the governing Party said in the election campaign, research and development is essential to the future of Canada. Our educational system has been undermined. Promises made with respect to research have been reneged upon.
Also during the election campaign a great future for our youth was promised. What has been done in terms of that promise? We can see that for the sake of trying to reduce the deficit members of the Government have decided that youth should be the victims on whose backs the deficit must be carried. Presumably the deficit is being cut for the sake of our young people in order that they will not inherit our debts in the future. The future of our youth is being cut back because the Government is cutting back on the deficit. The Tories have closed campus employment offices on many campuses across the country. They have cut back on post-secondary education in terms of what was promised in order to make a viable system of education. Training seats in community colleges have been cut back by some 40 per cent. Katimavik was closed down entirely. Funding which was to go to the Youth Ministry was also cut back. The Ministry has now been shifted to another Department, that of the Department of Employment and Immigration. The Youth Ministry now has virtually no budget and no objectives. The Tories froze the level of student loans, and the list goes on. The Tories have cut back on our youth; they have cut them off at the knees. They are the future of our country and yet the Government has not seen fit to fulfil any of the promises it made to them during the election campaign. The Government also promised to look after research programs outside of universities.
In short, there is grave concern being expressed in the country about the future of our young people. Yet the Tories do not hear it. People have spoken out in every area of the country. The Opposition has spoken out, yet members of the Government have not heard. One person who has spoken out with great effectiveness has been the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Justice Brian Dickson. He spoke recently at the University of British Columbia. In his speech he tried to indicate to Canadians that there is a grave problem which faces the educational system. I would like to quote from his speech which was well reported by the media. Of course, as with all these types of speeches, the full text was not covered and some of the most poignant parts have not been given to us. The Chief Justice stated:
Perhaps most significantly, there is a serious, bordering on tragic, lack of funding for universities in Canada today.
Supply
It is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada who used the word "tragic". I am sure it is a word he would not use lightly, unless it really portrayed the situatuion. In all my travels and in all that I have seen the situation is tragic. The Chief Justice is quite right. His speech continues:
Gordon MacNabb, the Past President of the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council, recently pointed out that of nine member nations of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Develoment (OECD), Canada ranked eighth in total investment in reserach and development, behind even Sweden and the Netherlands. Listen to this description by Dr. Andrew MacKay, the President of Dalhousie University:
"Fiscal restraints have brought student/faculty ratios perilously high at many of our institutions. They have made it nearly impossible for us to bring in bright new minds to teach our students and undertake research. Our libraries are suffering for want of appropriate acquisitions. Most of our scientific, technical and computing equipment for teaching is obsolescent.
Our physical plant is generally in desperate need of repair. And many of us have found it necessary to turn away students we would have previously admitted to our core programs in the arts and sciences because we can no longer do work of satisfactory quality except by limiting numbers."
That is tragic. It is a deplorable situation which exists in the country. It is a situation on which the Government turns its back. It has turned its back on the needs of the universities by changing the formula and by leaving them with even less money than they were sure they would receive in order to be able to supply the necessary education for our young people.
Again, I quote from the speech made by the Chief Justice:
Let me speak first to governments, provincial and federal. Please do not choke off the funding of universities.
That is the plea of the Chief Justice. He went on:
Canada must have good universities with outstanding teachers and world class research facilities. Second-class funding of universities will inevitably lead to second-class teachers, second-class students and, ultimately, a second-class nation.
That is the kind of nation Tories are ready to give to the people of Canada when they come to power. The Chief Justice went on:
It has been said by many people that education is too important to be left to educators. That may be true. But it is also true that education is too important to be left to ministers of finance. Universities desperately require funds to perform their great mission in democratic societies. Governments spend billions of dollars every year on all manner of projects, many worthwhile, others not so worthwhile. In my opinion, money spent on minds will never be money misspent.
When the Chief Justice of Canada has to plead with the Government to provide the necessary funds to keep universities operating, it describes the tragically misplaced priorities of the federal Government. Having served, along with my colleagues, on the task force on post-secondary education and having travelled through the Maritimes, I found that every single university president, the head of every faculty organization and the head of every student union said exactly the same thing as the Chief Justice and Dr. MacKay. This is not simply rhetoric on the part of partisan opposition Members. It is a tragic plight that is facing Canada. Because of the wrong priorities of the conservative, Tory, reactionary Government, we find that our post-secondary educational system is moving

June 10, 1986
Supply
down to a second-class status. That was the evidence that was given by everyone who came before the committee to testify on Bill C-96. Speaker after speaker said the same thing.
The previous Secretary of State, now the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. McLean), at least tried to get the Government to understand the importance of this matter. Before the election, he spoke out over and over again criticizing the Liberal Government for not doing enough. We now find that the new Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) is washing his hands of this entire matter and saying that it is a problem for the provincial Governments.
This is the worst Secretary of State the Canadian Parliament have ever seen. He has abdicated federal responsibility for education. He has walked away from it and he is not fighting to give leadership that will ensure that young people are protected and the educational system is given a first-class status. Rather, he is getting rid of his responsibilities by saying that it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, thus leaving it to them to solve a problem that is a federal responsibility.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Beauharnois- Salaberry (Mr. Hudon) for a question or comment.


Mr. Hudon:: Mr. Speaker, how is it that my hon. colleague seems so pleased now with provinces complaining about being forced to reduce education services because of alleged cuts in transfer payments when his own Government reduced even more those payments before the election and that we did provide provinces with more than $100 million just to fill the gap left by the legislation introduced by the Liberals who lost their election on that very topic? Could he explain today his statement which flies in the face of the statements of his own party in 1984?


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member speaks absolute rubbish. The level of funding under the formula which was established in 1977 was maintained by the Liberal Government until, at the time of the inflation problem, it was cut back to 6 per cent one year and to 5 per cent the next. However, the formula remained in place and the level automatically returned to 7.4 per cent. There was a temporary cut in the increase made for the purposes of inflation, and after that was over the level returned automatically. It is this Government which has made a permanent cut to 5 per cent, a level that barely deals with the inflation problem.
Whatever may be the case, the university system is in grave difficulty.
Why is this Hon. Member asking me about what happened before when right now all the evidence I have presented to him shows that our young people are in a grave crisis, and despite the election promises to keep the funding at the same level it was before, the Government has cut back from the 7.4 per cent formula? What kind of hypocrisy is that?


Jean-Guy Hudon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Beauharnois- Salaberry (Mr. Hudon) on a supplementary.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what happened with the electoral promise to maintain transfer payments precisely to present levels, and more specifically as regards education. I would like the Hon. Member to show us why it was an hypocritical promise as he calls it, a broken commitment-


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Hon. Member was not listening. Perhaps I was not effective enough as a speaker. Had he been listening to the quotations I recited, he would have known that the Conservative Party was asked two questions by the Canadian Association of University Teachers. First, the CAUT asked the Conservative Party if it would maintain the level of funding at the 1977 level, and in its official reply the Conservative Party said that it is committed to sustaining the current federal financial commitment according to the formula set out in the 1977 agreement.
To make doubly sure, the CAUT asked the Conservative Party a second question. It asked if the Conservative Party supports the continuation of the Established Programs Financing Act in its present form, the form of the 1977 agreement, in so far as it deals with post-secondary education. The reply was that the Conservative Party supports fully the original 1977 funding formula and the legislation providing for it. The Conservative Party replied-


Jean-Guy Hudon: Who?


Roland de Corneille: The Conservative Party, at election time, is asked questions by organizations and groups.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Who signed it?


Roland de Corneille: I do not have the name of the person who signed it. It is the Hon. Member's organization and he should know the answer to that question. If the Hon. Member wishes to doubt the word of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, that is fine, but I received this from the association's correspondence. I think it is very embarrassing for the Hon. Member to challenge his own Party's answers to the Canadian Association of University Teachers. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), after coming to power, indicated that he would honour that. It is not only those promises but also the promises of the Minister.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question to the Hon. Member about research and development in Canada. During the election campaign, the Conservative Party was supposed to be serious about increasing financial incentives to research and development and I was therefore somewhat
June 10, 1986

surprised at the slowness and lack of interest of the Government as far as this issue is concerned. In fact, today, the newspapers reported that the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) made a statement at a seminar recently in Winnipeg, I think. The article published today in the newspaper Le Droit says the following:
Mr. Frank Oberle really let down the Canadians who favour an increase in research and development financing.
According to him, and I am still quoting the same article, Mr. Speaker:
According to him, this would be treating "the symptoms rather than the disease". In his opinion-
That is, in the opinion of the Minister:
-this money would be better used in the universities and the private sector and for retraining programs.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask this question to the Elon. Member because I know that he travelled around Eastern Canada on behalf of the Liberal Party and had the opportunity to meet many people as a member of the task force on postsecondary education financing. In view of this lack of interest of the Government in research and development, because we all know that this activity creates jobs, did the Hon. Member meet with people in Eastern Canada, in universities, such as researchers and even students, or people simply interested in the issue, who spoke about the need to develop this sector and ask the Federal Government re-establish programs to support research and development to create more jobs? Could he also speak about the negative impact of the policy or non-policy of this Government, which consists in ignoring the very important sector of research and development? Could the Hon. Member share his views with us and tell us how he assessed public opinion in Eastern Canada during the last few weeks?


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for inviting comments on the reactions in the maritime provinces to our task force on post-secondary education. Without any exception, presidents of universities, presidents of faculty associations, presidents of colleges, and presidents of student unions cited great disappointment that the Government broke its promises with regard to research and development and with regard to support for post-secondary education. One could even cite quotations from Tory as well as other Party Premiers in Canada who expressed outrage at the way in which the Government has cut back on its commitments to education and research.
Universities regard research as being of critical importance. Right now there is a brain drain, they reported to us, where professors are leaving Canada and going, not to Harvard or Yale but to remote parts of the United States like Tennessee and Alabama which they find more attractive than staying in Canada.


An Hon. Member:: Time.
Supply


Roland de Corneille: I hear a colleague saying "Time", because he cannot stand hearing what the presidents of universities and students have been saying about the Government. He should be concerned and ask about what they are saying. They are saying that there is a brain drain. This is what the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, presidents of universities across Canada, and everyone involved in education have been saying. He should listen to what they are saying; instead of wanting time out, he should listen to the people of Canada.


Robert Nelson David Hicks: Mr. Speaker, as many Hon. Members will know, the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Andre) tabled a statement on our Department's Main Estimates at a meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence on April 15, 1986. My remarks today will draw upon that statement, but I shall also mention other matters which have transpired since that time.
I remind the House that the central thrust of the Government's defence policy has not changed since it was elected. We remain pledged to meet fully and most effectively our defence commitments. The essence of Canada's security policy for the past 37 years has been firmly rooted in deterrence, defence, arms control, and the peaceful resolution of conflict. We have subscribed to the basic tenets of collective defence which are implanted in the North Atlantic Treaty. Briefly, these tenets centre on faith in the purpose and principles of the United Nations Charter and a desire to live in peace with all peoples and all Governments.
The consistent aim of Canada's security policy for more than three decades has been to maintain world peace and to prevent a war which would endanger Canada. This has been achieved mainly by providing in concert with our allies an effective and incredible deterrent to any aggressive action directed against the West by the Soviet Union and members of the Warsaw Pact.
Because of our inability to defend this vast country alone and to safeguard Canadian interests abroad, we have sought our security through collective defence arrangements. Our military contributions to these collective arrangements, however, were seriously neglected in the 1970s, and they still suffer from that legacy.
When the Government took office, it did so with the determination to increase the effectiveness of Canada's Armed Forces. We undertook to give a higher priority to the needs of the Canadian forces in order that they would have the resources they need to do their job. We stated our intention to strengthen our links with our allies and to honour fully our commitments. In short, we undertook to keep faith with our friends as with ourselves, and this we certainly intend to do.
The defence policy review which the Government has undertaken is nearing completion. The basic policies, which will govern our security and defence arrangements over the next decade and onward to the turn of the century, will be outlined in a White Paper the Government will publish this fall. Whatever changes may be possible in the longer term, our

June 10, 1986
Supply
immediate past must be to restore a credible defence posture which meets existing commitments. We must regain the confidence of our allies that Canada will, to quote the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), "no longer be a dollar short and a day late".
When it comes to sharing the defence burden, our increase in European troop strength which is nearing completion was designed to initiate this confidence building process. The task ahead is a formidable one. We must rebuild Canada's credibility as a serious defence partner and give the Armed Forces a sense of direction. To these ends the White Paper will provide a better policy blueprint than has previously been the case with documents of this type. Because of the immensity of the challenge to overcome the deficit, the move from blueprint to effective force structure will require more time than originally planned. Nonetheless, we intend to move forward and to succeed in this endeavour.
As every Hon. Member of the House should readily acknowledge, in preparing the Budget the Government faced a situation requiring stern measures and difficult choices. We have accepted responsibility for both of these challenges. A productive economy and sound fiscal management are essential to the continued well-being and prosperity of the nation. They are also essential to a robust defence effort. To achieve both, the paramount need has been to take decisive action to reduce the deficit and to bring a halt to the ever increasing diversion of our national resources from productive activity to the service of an expanding national debt. We must succeed in this, or continued economic growth and improved defence effort before long will be beyond our means to accomplish.
Since it took office, the Government has given high priority to defence, and it will continue to do so. The Budget demonstrates this. Over the five-year period from 1986 to 1991, the Budget provides a higher level of funding for defence than was planned by the previous Government. The reference levels for the Department of National Defence announced in the Budget are lower than those approved by our predecessors for 1986-87 and 1987-88, but they planned no further growth after 198788.
In contrast, and to the benefit of the Department, the new Budget provides for at least 2 per cent annual growth after 1987 and 1988 thereby exceeding the total funding previously planned for the next five years by an estimated $605 million. This is not nearly as much as it should be but we have stated we will make every effort to improve funding levels further as fiscal and economic circumstances permit.
We are already on record, and I will re-iterate it today, that significant real growth in the defence budget over a number of years is the solution if the forces are to meet their commitments fully and effectively. For the short term, provision for modest growth in defence expenditures at a time when other departmental budgets are being reduced provides evidence of
our firm and positive commitment to an increase in Canada's defence effort.
Let me be more specific. The defence budget will grow in real terms, after the effects of national inflation are taken into account, by 2.75 per cent in 1986-87 and thereafter at 2 per cent per year. The result of such action is that the defence budget will increase by approximately $3.2 billion over the period 1986-87 through 1990-1991. Capital expenditure will rise to well over $3 billion over the next five years. However, I would be less than candid if I did not note that a significant part of this increase will be needed to offset defence inflation, which is substantially higher than the rate of national inflation. Even so, we do not intend to cancel any major projects that are essential to meeting our commitments. Some will have to proceed at a slower pace, others may have to be reduced, but the over-all program for the re-equipment of the Canadian Forces will still move forward.
For example, the CF-18 project is now nearing completion. Naval modernization is well under way and has received added impetus with the recent announcement of the $1.2 billion TRUMP project. Army re-equipment is proceeding at a lesser pace but the decision to proceed with the low level air defence project, albeit at a slower rate of implementation than we would wish, will still overcome one of the most serious operational deficiencies in our European based forces.
The size of the regular force will continue to increase and the strengthening of our forces in Europe will be completed. We shall also give close attention to upgrading the reserve force. In the short term, funds from the readiness and sustainment increment will be extensively utilized to provide tangible improvements in this area. In the fall of this year we will exercise, for the first time, the deployment of the full air-sea transportable brigade group which Canada has committed to the defence of northern Norway. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has already informed the House, units of our Maritime forces will conduct exercises in our eastern Arctic waters during the summer months. More generally, operational trading activities will be maintained at a level which will ensure the continued readiness of our forces and their full participation within the alliance.
The 1986-87 Department of National Defence estimate of $9.96 billion represents 9.3 per cent of the federal Budget. This compares with 9.2 per cent last fiscal year. The Department's share of the federal budget is the third largest in size after the Department of Finance at 30.7 per cent and the Department of Health and Welfare at 26.4 per cent.
The 1986-87 estimates show an increase for defence of $572 million over the 1985-86 estimates. This represents an increase of 6.1 per cent and, as I noted earlier, permits a real growth of 2.75 per cent for the coming year based on the current projection of the national inflation rate for 1986-87.
The Canadian Forces must never again be allowed to fall into the state of disrepair which undermined Canada's credibility as a responsible defence partner in the 1970s. These
June 10, 1986

budgetary allocations will not allow us to do everything that the Government considers to be necessary for defence. The primary objective of our Government is to set the nation's financial house in order and to secure Canada's economic future. It is also vitally important that Canada play its full part in securing peace with freedom in concert with our allies. These two objectives are linked. I am confident that the course we have charted in economic policy will succeed. With success will come the capacity to do what must be done for Canada to bear its fair share of the burden and responsibilities of alliance, to strengthen its voice in the councils of nations and thereby contribute to common security and well-being.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague, the Hon. Member for Scarborough East (Mr. Hicks) on an excellent speech and to say to all my friends and colleagues in the House tonight that it is just another indication of the hard work and dedication of our Government and its Ministers in being able to put forward programs showing Canadians in which direction we are going, something the previous Government could never do. You never see questions on housing or on agriculture. We are always keeping ahead. That is one reason that the Opposition is having a hard time today trying to mount any type of force.
My colleague reviewed some of the areas in national defence. Could he take a moment to bring us up to date with the most recent developments in the upgrading of equipment?


Robert Nelson David Hicks: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for taking such an interest in national defence. I feel almost like a mosquito in a nudist colony trying to answer that question because I do not know where to begin.
As far as the annual budget that I alluded to in my remarks, it is $10.2 billion spread over this year. We are maintaining the programs that were begun. The F-18 program, for instance, is costing $5.2 billion. The F-18 program was begun several years ago and the last aircraft will be delivered in September, 1988. This $5.2 billion will be spread over several years, and will be on a reducing scale until our fiscal year 1990-1991.
I believe I alluded to the TRUMP project, the updating of our tribal class destroyer. I have heard Hon. Members from the Opposition today say that there are no jobs and we are losing jobs in various areas, but no one yet from the Opposition has made reference to the jobs that are being created in Canada. In our shipbuilding industry there is a $1.2 billion upgrading program of our tribal class destroyer. The shipbuilding industry in Canada will receive a very important injection, and I make that reference because shipbuilding in Canada over the last few years has been embarrassingly neglected. The shipbuilding industry in Canada went downhill certainly during the 1970s. There are hundreds and hundreds of shipyards that have gone out of business over the last two years only because the ships, our navy and naval equipment was never kept up to date by the previous Government.
Supply
I do not think I alluded to the low level air defence system which will cost around $1 billion. It is extremely important because it will safeguard our European bases at Lahr and Baden-Baden. In addition to those two bases there will be a portable low level air defence system used for the Canadian air-sea transportable brigade which I mentioned was going to northern Norway later this year. Those are a few of the ways in which we are continuing to upgrade our military equipment.
I thank the Hon. Member for his question.


Mr. Clinch:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to ask of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Scarborough East (Mr. Hicks). It involves the peacekeeping exercises across the world.
I would like to know if Canada is presently involved with any peacekeeping exercises. If Canada is involved, where is it involved?


Robert Nelson David Hicks: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank another hon. colleague who is certainly very interested in Canada's defence and our commitments. Canada has been well known for many years for its peacekeeping efforts. To answer the Hon. Member's question briefly, our most recent commitment is to the Sinai. I believe we have dispatched 136 peacekeeping troops and nine helicopters to that area.


Mr. Crofton:: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to direct a question to my colleague. The committee recently visited the St. John's ship yards and had a look at the new ship construction program. Would the Member care to comment on the work which is being done in the yards and the benefits it may have for Canada's future shipbuilding?


Robert Nelson David Hicks: Mr. Speaker, I thank still another hon. colleague for his great interest in defence. It was the chairman of the Committee on National Defence who asked that question. The committee did visit the St. John's shipyards. I mentioned a few minutes ago the way the shipbuilding industry in Canada has deteriorated so devastatingly over the years. To go into a shipyard in Canada which has been in existence for over 100 years and seeing ships being built gives one a little confidence.
During that trip we were also very interested to see the modern way in which today's major ships are being built. Everything is computerized. Premodular units are built, shipped down to a graving dock and welded together. The old days of laying a keel and building a ship are all gone. The computerized, premodular construction of ships is very gratifying to see.
The ship being built there is the first of the six Canadian patrol frigates to which the Government has committed $5.2 billion. There was a slight slowdown in that program, but everyone will be pleased to know that the problems with the steel have been completely overcome. The first frigate will be delivered within a few months of the original target date.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Hicks), as a form of criticism I guess, referred to

June 10, 1986
Supply
the Opposition not snapping the suspenders of the Government on job creation. We have enough trouble trying to keep track of job loss. We can hardly give the time of day to the job-creation program.
Does the Member know that in the Estimates there is provision for the jobs of 5,000 public servants being cut? Has he any consideration for those 5,000 public servants and their families? What does he think about that policy?


Robert Nelson David Hicks: I think that all the policies which the Government has seen fit to put into place are excellent policies. The Government has had to move slowly and analyse the policies which were desecrating the entire annual budget of the country. No other Government could manage to put a country $32 billion or $34 billion into debt every year.
With specific reference to the jobs, Mr. Speaker, what other Government has created 1,000 jobs a day since it took office? The 1,000 jobs a day will easily compensate for a few jobs here and a few jobs there which have to be cancelled to offset programs which were just not working out.


Mrs. Browes:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with my colleagues in congratulating my neighbour, the Member for Scarborough East (Mr. Hicks) for his analysis and the balance in his speech about defence, accenting the very important aspects of peace and bringing forth some very excellent information on the advancement and up-grading of our military to preserve the freedom which we enjoy in our tremendous country. We will cerainly look forward to the White Paper coming out in the fall.
I know the Member has spent some time in the standing committee talking about the search and rescue aspect of the Ministry. Could the Member comment briefly on that aspect of the Ministry?


Robert Nelson David Hicks: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. neighbour from Scarborough Centre (Mrs. Browes). I thought she was going to ask me when the first female general was going to be appointd in the Armed Forces. I am disappointed that she is asking about search and rescue. However, that is something which is dear to many of our hearts. Search and rescue is a responsibility shared by National Defence, the RCMP and Transport Canada. In my opinion there are great deficiencies in search and rescue in the country on both coasts, in our northern reaches, in the vast interiors and in the Great Lakes region which was recently pointed out as an area in which search and rescue needs all the help it can get. I am pleased to tell the Hon. Member that there are two subcommittees presently looking into all aspects of search and rescue. We hope to have a report next year.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, we are involved this evening in debate on the motion to concur in the Estimates. I appreciate the opportunity to say something on this thirteenth and final allotted day for the supply period. I want to deal particularly this evening with the Estimates
providing for the Government's implementation of multicultur-alism policy, for expenditures which are to be carried out particularly through the multiculturalism sector of the Department of the Secretary of State. These expenditures are the responsibility of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Jelinek). In considering these Estimates I want to say something about the inability which members of the Opposition have experienced to consider those Estimates at any length in committee.
The process of considering Estimates is sometimes rather curious. A good deal of it can, I fear, be a matter of pro forma action in which a Government with a great majority approves the spending and calls upon the House of Commons to give its support to enormous expnditures during the year, which expenditures will exceed $100 billion. The possibility of considering these expenditures in any detail is fairly limited in the House. The consideration can sometimes become almost perfunctory.
The Opposition usually has a sense of inadequate action by the Government. What is sought then is not any reduction in expenditures or disagreement with what is put forward as such, but rather the possibility of adding to the amounts that will be spent. Clearly in the case of multiculturalism expenditures, which amount to a little more than $24 million, the desire to have more resources devoted to this important area of social, cultural and economic action in the country is something which I want to advocate very strongly.
The main opportunity for the Opposition to make its feeling known is frequently, particularly in the provincial houses, to propose a motion to reduce the Minister's salary to $1. Such a motion strikes me as quite appropriate in the case of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. He is, of course, a double Minister of State with responsibility for fitness and amateur sport as well as multiculturalism. I suppose he could manage if the multiculturalism portion were reduced to only $1.
The reason I suggest that one would like to reduce his salary to only $1 is because the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism has not given my colleague, the critic for the Official Opposition on multiculturalism, and myself the opportunity we wanted to deal with the Minister on his Estimates, and to clarify the policy of the Government and where the expenditures will be focused during the current fiscal year. Through this process we will satisfy ourselves that the Government is dealing properly with the multicultural policy for which it is responsible.
I recognize that some of the difficulty I am alluding to occurred thanks to the recent establishment of this committee and the need to arrive at a reference and order which would ensure that this part of the Estimates of the Department of the Secretary of State was assigned to the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism rather than the committee responsible for the Department of the Secretary of State.
June 10, 1986

I suggest, however, that some of it involved an order that was arrived at in the last part of May which gave the responsibility to the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism and led to the cancellation of a meeting on May 27. I expected the Minister to appear then so we could carefully consider with him his spending plans for the year. The fact that the committee meeting was cancelled and no meeting was laid on to consider the matter is the basic procedural and parliamentary reason for my objection to passage of the Estimates. It is also the reason for my suggestion that it would be appropriate to reduce the Minister's salary to $ 1.
I should perhaps say that we are hoping to have the Minister appear before us next week. I hope his office will be attentive to my comments this evening and that they will come better prepared for that encounter than they would otherwise. If we are going to have a meeting with the Minister, let it be a fruitful meeting where we are provided details on the application of policy and the division of the Estimates for his sector. Let us have that kind of detail so we can have a really useful meeting. It will be a meeting clearly after the fact in parliamentary terms, given our consideration of the Estimates today and the votes we face later this evening. However, it would at least give us in the Opposition the opportunity to fulfil our constitutional responsibility of scrutinizing closely the spending plans of the Minister.
To expand on the larger issue, the difficulty we face is that the multiculturalism policy this Government is following has been brought into question over the last number of months. Neither has there been any clear statement at any length, with spending details attached, to which one could respond or with which one could deal critically in considering the appropriateness of the Minister's decisions. This situation of uncertainty which the Minister has created by his actions over the last number of months is why I want to take a look back toward the beginning of this Government's mandate in the fall of 1984, and scan some of the suggestions I had the opportunity to make for clarifying the Government's policy and establishing structure in the multicultural area.
I can look back as far as the month of November, 1984 when I had the opportunity in a statement under Standing Order 21 to emphasize the importance of a separate department of multiculturalism. In concluding my observations that afternoon I said that:
The Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Murta) is reportedly engaged in consultations with ethnic groups to consider the direction of Canada's multicultural policy. I hope these consultations create a better result than the previous Government's multiculturalism Bill of last June. Let the Government show its good will by honouring at least one campaign promise, one that holds an enormous symbolic importance for thousands of Canadians.
To see a department established and have its policy clarified is something we have waited for over many months. I used the occasion of Private Members' hour on September 9, 1985 to expand on this topic. My motion for the creation of the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism, as well as a distinct department of multiculturalism, had found fulfilment as far as the committee was concerned as of last June. However, as far
Supply
as the department was concerned we had some indications in August of 1985 that the Government might be considering it. Here we are now nine months later and we are still waiting. The observations I made that particular afternoon are still waiting for fulfilment. As a matter of fact, if the Minister had a mandate in August of 1985 to consider what sort of administrative rearrangements would be advisable if the Department of Multiculturalism were to be created, we have not seen any indication of it since then. It has fallen like a stone into a pond. There were some small ripples but now the pond has gone limpid again.
We might have expected as well a White Paper on multiculturalism which would spell out the Government's policy. Again I have used occasions over the past months to say something about that. In the same Private Members' hour on September 9, 1985 I spoke as follows:
The Government is at work on a White Paper dealing with multiculturalism. That White Paper has been expected for some time and is likely to appear early in the new year, one gathers. Presumably it will be followed by a Multiculturalism Act, which has long been hoped for by persons active in ethnocultural affairs across the country. This suggests that the deliberations of Government may well be involved with this question.
The "question" being the establishment of a department. That was the beginning of September, 1985. Where are we now? We are nearing the middle of June in the second part of the first session and we have not seen any action on a White Paper. We have not been apprised of what sort of multiculturalism act might be arrived at. Obviously we have had none of the basics needed to create a department.
When I questioned the Minister about this last November, he suggested he would be meeting with the new Standing Committee on Multiculturalism in a week or two. That part of it was true enough. He then went on to say at that time we would be able to discuss at length the details of an Act and a White Paper.
The deliberations with the Minister when he did meet with us later in November did not provide any guidance as to what the Government might be thinking about concerning a White Paper. There was certainly nothing of the White Paper itself in evidence and we certainly did not get any clear sense of what sort of Act we might get. Sadly enough, groups from all across the country who have provided input of all sorts towards the drafting of an Act, as well as suggestions for the structure of the department, continue to wait. By the time in April that I took up the Minister's inadequate responses to my questions of last November, it was quite clear that not only did we not have a White Paper or an Act to consider, there was no department being created. What had occurred in the meantime were suggestions for dramatic changes in policy.
The Minister suggested that he was already implementing certain changes, though he talked about people, including Members of Parliament having an opportunity to debate these changes. He also suggested quite clearly that he was involved in implementing changes without regard, other than for his

June 10, 1986
Supply
cabinet colleagues, to what the people of Canada might think. Perhaps I am a shade too strong on that. Let me review what happened in the interim.
Earlier this winter the Government tabled the various volumes on the Nielsen Task Force on Program Review. In that review there were a number of aspects that touched on the multiculturalism policies and practices of the Government. I note that in the central recommendations, the options which the task force had recommended to it by the study team, the first two items, which very quickly aroused enormous unease were the following:
1.	In helping to overcome barriers to full participation in society and increasing the recognition of the contribution of ethnic groups to Canadian society, the Multiculturalism Branch activities and programs should concentrate on facilitating cultural integration.
In that fateful last word was a suggestion to which ethnocultural organizations and persons concerned about them have been reacting ever since. Item 2 says the following:
2.	Phase out federal funding for organizations and projects aimed at cultural retention and that they be assumed by the communities themselves, the provinces, and the municipalities or other federal programs.
There in two suggestions, end support for cultural retention and encourage cultural integration, was a fairly clear cut statement for an assimilationist policy to be followed by this Government.
When the leaders of the study team appeared before the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism this morning it was clear that a consensus had been arrived at among that group of Conservative advisers to government. They conceded that another group might have come out with different conclusions with the same evidence. They approached with a bias, a bias toward assimilation, and they came out with these recommendations.
What did the Minister do about these things? Here is where the fat is really in the fire. In an interview which the Minister gave about March 6 he announced:
-that he has been working on a "totally new multiculturalism policy" aimed at bringing ethnic minorities out of "ethno-cultural corners" and into the economic mainstream of Canada.
The policy was in the final stages of preparation for Cabinet consideration, according to this report in The Globe and Mail. Some may say that this is really what you should be concerned about as far as the White Paper is concerned.
This was not a policy statement for presentation to the House or for publication to Canadians inviting reaction. The Minister said he was developing a "totally new multiculturalism policy", and it was in the final stages of preparation for Cabinet consideration. He went on to say the following:
It will include involving ethnic minorities more in business-
That was an emphasis on which he was to be acting very quickly. On the other hand, he was going be cut grants to certain ethnic organizations. He went on to say the following:
We are in the process of reviewing the whole funding and granting procedures in line with the development of the new policy.
He said there is not going to be additional money for multiculturalism.
It's going to be redirection of existing funds.
That would be basic to the policy shift.
There's no doubt some organizations are going to be cut out.
He would not identify for the reporter which ethnic organizations he planned to stop helping. He did say he had begun implementing the policy.
About five weeks after this particular interview, there was the Multiculturalism Means Business conference in Toronto, costing the sector a couple of hundred thousands of dollars in order to run it. It clearly involved just that kind of redirection of existing funding. Let the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Bissonnette) undertake this rather than having this sector lose money from those activities in order to pursue the Minister's new ideas.
That particular interview and the publication of the Nielsen task force documents and the Ministers' conference in Toronto, all of them together, have suggested to ethnocultural groups across the country and their leaders that the Government is shifting policy. There is no opportunity to respond to it except in the way of the writing of letters, the statements in the media and so on. Parliament has not been given an opportunity to debate this. There is no White Paper before us and no Act has appeared. When we sought the opportunity in committee to deal with this at the appropriate time, it was taken from us.
The Minister did, of course, appear at a meeting in May and he confused the matter further by denying the things that had been published in that particular interview. I have made a note of some of the things the Minister said in response to my questions. First, there was the matter of whether organizations would lose funding. He began by stating the principle again:
-if there is an ethno-cultural organization in Canada, which is not contributing to the well being of the community in any way, shape or form-
It should not receive funding. Then he said very quickly:
To date we have not found such an organization. Every organization that is being funded by the Government of Canada appears to be contributing to the well being of its community and therefore will continue to receive funding.
I wonder what sort of serious study was involved. The Minister opened the possibility that organizations would not measure up. Now he is saying very hastily that they had not found any such organizations. Given what the Nielsen task force said about the lack of evaluations in this particular sector, I doubt he had any more information at hand to justify saying that.
Then there was the precise question of whether there was going to be more money or a redirection of money. He had said there would not be, that there would have to be redirection. The Minister complicated the matter completely by saying the following:
I read the story at that time. I forget the wording of it, but-and I am not trying to backtrack or put the blame on anybody else-there were several statements in that story that were taken out of context. Where I said there will be
June 10, 1986

no new funds for the time being is within the context of our cultural retention and promotion.
But certainly if we are going to move into new directions, such as the area of education or the area of multiculturalism and business, or other areas, then it is my intention, and always has been, to go before Cabinet, first to get the approval of that direction, and second, to get the necessary resources.
That is admirable. That is what one would expect, but he had not said that earlier. The basic questions remain: What is the multiculturalism policy of this Government? What are the directions it intends to take? What sort of reorganization will occur in the sector? Where is the study which the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. McLean) was authorized to undertake last August? Has it been completed? Is the Minister of State for Immigration making recommendations for the establishment of a department? What will its structure be? What sorts of resources will be available to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism or, as he would become, simply the Minister of Multiculturalism with a full-fledged department? What sorts of resources will he have? What kinds of policy directions will be funded adequately? Where will there be standstill or fallback?
Those questions cry out for an answer. Those are the kinds of questions we wanted to ask the Minister in committee while we were considering his estimates. This evening I am speaking to this question and suggesting that the appropriate action to take regarding this Minister would be to reduce his salary to $1 and demand that the Government give us the White Paper, set forth policy and give us an Act to debate so we could make the kind of progress in multiculturalism this country wants. That is what needs to be done.
I look to the Government and demand that it act along the lines that its policy envisaged during the election campaign. It has been almost two years since the election. The Government is half way through its mandate with precious little done, except confusing Canadians generally, particularly those concerned about the the ethnocultural communities.


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


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker-You like it?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, Hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have an audience.
First of all, I think we should remember that this debate concerns a motion inviting the House to concur in the Main Estimates tabled by the President of the Treasury Board on February 27. I think our listeners and those who are going to read these proceedings should know that a fairly substantial amount is involved, namely 116 billion 740 million dollars. This is not peanuts, Mr. Speaker. This money is to be spent on governing this country and administering the programs of our
Supply
various departments, and will also be used to pay for Government spending.
We were informed today that the Government is trying to be more effective in its programs and more efficient in the way it implements these programs. We all agree, Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing this Government's aim is to be efficient and effective. Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that among the Estimates to be found in the blue book, there are many expenditures that raise a number of questions for the Members of this House, and since they would like to put these to the various Ministers, we hope we will soon be able to go into Committee of the Whole so that we can question the Ministers in the House and find out how they intend to proceed with these enormous sums of money, this $ 116 billion they want to spend.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to take up the case of our federal public servants, because in my riding and the area I represent, the Public Service is important for jobs and careers. We are now in the month of June, which is graduation time at our universities and high schools, and I know there are many young and capable university graduates who are looking for jobs, and who normally would look to the federal Government for a job in the National Capital Region.
Mr. Speaker, we know that in the NCR, Conservatives have been hitting these jobs for a number of years. In 1979, they had a policy for cutting Public Service employment. They were going to cut 60,000 jobs. We know that the President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Stevens, said: I am going to cut 60,000 jobs.
Indeed they were eventually defeated and then took office again and did not forget their project to cut and slash personnel. They took a more discreet approach, they were more ... I will not use the word "deceitful" but they went about it more slowly. They said they had cut 15,000 jobs.
As a matter of fact, we know that 5,500 positions will disappear this year, a quarter of them-27 per cent to be precise-in the National Capital Region. This means jobs, it means that families will have to revise their budget and even in some cases consider new careers to meet the requirements of a Government which, in principle, says it wants to be more effective and more efficient.
To achieve that, Mr. Speaker, they decided to cut staff and slow down economic activities in the National Capital Region. And when I say that I mean that the major employer has reduced economic activities in the region by a substantial margin, and later on I will explain to the House how these cutbacks affect the region.
In May 1985 as you may recall, and I will give the figures, the Mulroney Government announced a reduction of 15,000 jobs in the public service over the following five years.
As I said a moment ago, the federal Government is the main employer in the National Capital Region and accounts for

June 10, 1986
Supply
nearly 28 to 30 per cent of all economic activities in the region. It is therefore very important.
After the cut-backs were announced, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) tabled a document to propose further cut-backs of about $500 million and a hiring freeze. On top of that, we were told that cut-backs similar to the 15,000 public service jobs would probably be made in Crown corporations and other administrations not directly related to the Treasury Board. So if we add up the 15,000 jobs which have been cut and the 15,000-it isn't I who said it, it's in the Budget papers-15,000 similar jobs in Crown corporations, we get
30,000,	and if we also take into account the $500 million in programs which will be terminated, it is not difficult to extrapolate, Mr. Speaker, and conclude that all this is going to have a rather significant and probably negative impact on job creation in the National Capital Region. Let me explain: I am not an economist, but economists always say that a job in the public sector will create a job and a half in the private sector. As I was saying earlier, this is therefore an important proportion. If you take 30,000 jobs in the federal public sector, and if you multiply that by the 1.5 job creation factor in the private sector, we could end up with 45,000 jobs being directly or indirectly affected over the next five years by these government cuts.
It could have, therefore, a rather significant impact and I want to serve notice to my constituents that we will have steps to try and stop that. The Government says: Dont worry! We are going to diversify the local economy. Mr. Speaker, we have already tried to diversify in the area of science and technology; we have tried to set up in the region a high tech computer industry. This worked rather well. I know that we have here the so-called Ottawa Silicone Valley and there were a series of private initiatives supported by the Government to try and diversify the economy and make jobs in the private sector as interesting, if not more so as those in the public sector.
We have not yet been very lucky in the high tech industry, but I am still hoping for the day when we will be able to rely more on it than on the public sector.
From last November to today, Mr. Speaker, there have been fairly significant cuts in the personnel of the Public Service. What I mean to say is that the House should realize that these cuts will become effective on April 1st of this year. The 15,000 fewer jobs will therefore take effect on April 1, 1986. The cuts ordered by the President of the Treasury Board from the budgets of various departments over the past few months have been rather harsh for some people.
Although I do not always trust statistics for evidence, statistical data indicate that there are now in the region 3,000 more unemployed than there were at the same time last year. Three thousand more jobless in the Ottawa area than there were in 1985, that's a fairly large number of people looking for jobs and obviously not getting any from the main employer, the Government, jobs that would meet their career expectations.
Mr. Speaker, to avoid being told I am totally obsessed by this employment cut-back in the Public Service, I want to point out to Hon. Members that in my riding of Ottawa- Vanier the federal Government is not, contrary to what many people think, the number one employer. It is so for the whole National Capital area, but in the riding of Ottawa-Vanier, a riding relying largely on service industries, the education and health sectors are the big employers.
I think of universities for example which employ about
3,000	people in my riding. To have 3,000 more unemployed in a year is as if the University of Ottawa had been abolished, as if the 3,000 jobs provided by the university had been eliminated. That is the impact. I am trying to quantify this. We have a large number of jobs in the health sector. There are several hospitals in my riding. More than 4,000 people are working in that sector in my riding. That too is in the service sector, Mr. Speaker.
In the education sector, in addition to the university, my riding has a post-secondary college and also several elementary and secondary schools.
Government policies have a snowballing effect that is puzzling a lot of people.
Hotels, local trade, businesses, retail sales, housing starts, sales of houses, all of these give a fairly good indication of the economic well-being of the region. And if you take hotels, for instance, you might think that with an attractive dollar and the potential attraction of our region for American tourists, tourism in Ottawa, in the National Capital Region, should be expanding and our hotels would be able to welcome a lot more people. However, that is not the case! Hotels are presently going through hard times. They have an occupancy rate which is very low, and I am told this is because of Government cuts. I have no comments on that, because I think tourism... but that is what I am told. I am told that it is because of the cuts. I am told that it is because there is no lobbying. I am not saying that I endorse those things. I am just saying that I was told that.
I do not know if it is true. I have no proof of that. But what I know is that hotel managers are saying that the tourist trade is depressed in the National Capital Region.
Housing starts are down, Mr. Speaker. Houses for sale ... just travel through my constituency, and you will see that there are many houses for sale. People are worried. The real estate market is somewhat undecided presently because people are concerned with ensuring, with reinforcing their economic position, and they want to sell houses which carry heavy mortgages.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) who is here with us and is a man who has good ideas sometimes, not all the time, but sometimes, has announced that the freeze was being lifted and that the Government was going to hire people again in its departments.
June 10,1986

I hope this initiative will be recognized by officials as a means of attracting young people, recruiting young people. I think it is time that people should be told that they can make a career for themselves in the Government and that the Government encourages university graduates to apply for positions with the federal Government. We need those professionals. We need those young people and we need that recovery, and I think the Government made the right move in deciding to lift that freeze a few days from now and start hiring people again.
I believe it is a positive step at this time of the year, when a lot of young people are looking for a job.
I therefore congratulate the President of the Treasury Board for lifting that freeze and recognizing the present need in our region to hire young students, young graduates who are looking for jobs.
Mr. Speaker, as the President of the Treasury Board is with us, I would like to go back to the bonus that was offered to the employees in his Department. This morning, I started to ask him what eligibility criteria were used for that performance or productivity bonus, because I tend to be a little suspicious when a program is applied or announced but the criteria to be used for that program are not made public.
In the last few months, I have tried to find out, how one could maintain-and I am not the one who says so but the Minister himself-that 4,000 senior managers or high officials could get productivity bonuses if they attained the Government's expense reduction goals. How such a program could be administered may be a bit difficult to understand for some people. That is why this morning 1 asked the Minister if he could give us before the end of the day the criteria for this program. He did not answer my question. He told me it would be done within a few days and that the particulars of the program would be made known before the end of the month, I think.
I have talked to a few managers in the Public Service and they are not so sure they want to have this money, basically because this kind of productivity incentive can be counterproductive. The managers, of course, whose responsibility it is and who receive higher salaries, have been told that if they reach the Government's objectives in cutting into programs and possibly reducing expenditures, they will receive a premium. Why this reward? Why give incentives to people who are already being paid to do a good job and who receive higher salaries to effectively manage programs in an efficient manner? I do not understand and that is why I ask.
I am not being naive when I ask the question. I have done research. I have looked at several jurisdictions. In Washington there is a program of this sort and there are pros and cons. There are arguments for and against incentive programs. I can quote a few arguments against incentives from a document entitled "Public Personnel Management" which states that
Supply
incentives circumvent the purposes of non-profit organizations. In a sense, incentives act like profit sharing and such action is against the basic concept of non-profit organizations. In the private sector, incentives are generally based on some level of productivity or output and are tied to revenue. In a non-profit organization, earning money is not considered the basic objective. Because of this, non-profit organizations have naturally been more concerned with the services they offer than anything else, including money.
The document goes on to explain that in the legislature of the State of Washington, a Bill passed on March 3, 1982, rewards certain people but it is based on budgetary Estimates, based on sums of money which are known to be lumped for the purpose of giving that incentive, and based on a program and on criteria which are well known. 1 put the question to the Minister again because we are talking about Estimates. Why did the Minister not come in today and show us in those Estimates of the Treasury Board that amount of money, that incentive which will be distributed to the managers?
I make that point seriously to the Minister. I fail to understand why that same amount of money, if it is available in a lump sum, cannot be given to the public servants on a merit principle. Why can it not be given to those who better perform, and not necessarily managers? The Minister knows I have gone through this over the years on the school boards. We tried to administer that kind of a program based on merit, better functioning and better efficiency, and that is difficult. I recognize it is difficult to have the criteria in place, but 1 want to know what our Government is going to do because it is important to me to know how the program is going to be put into effect.
I have spoken to managers and I am told by some that they do not want that money given to them on the basis of more efficiently cutting public servant jobs. The perception out there is that more money is given to managers if they cut programs or Public Service jobs. I do not believe the Minister is the type who would want to do that, but I do say to him that that is the perception out there. The average Canadian does not know what the Government means by an "incentive to productivity".
I plead with the Minister to come forward soon with the information concerning the sums of money involved. What are the criteria for access to these sums of money? What time span are we talking about? How will the program be administered?
I hope it will be a program based on merit and not on the efficiency of managers to cut programs. I hope that the method employed will not be the awarding of some type of bounty money to those who perform better in terms of their search for innocent people who are not for the Government's lack of direction.
I wanted to talk about the state of certain programs which the Government has put forward and which are included in the
COMMONS DEBATES_________________ June 10, 1986
Supply
Main Estimates. However, I see that Your Honour is indicating that I have but one minute left.
There is a great deal to be said for some of the guidance and orientation which has been given by the Government. I do not think the Government should be run like a hamburger joint. I do not think that we should be thinking in terms of bottom-line administration. We have to think of the quality of service. We have to think in terms of how to better those services and how to better dispense them to Canadians. We have to think of how to better obtain value for money spent.
In light of the answers I have been given to date, I am not satisfied that I can vote on these Estimates blindly without knowing how the Government administers the moneys in public trust, particularly in terms of the example I gave regarding public servants. That type of philosophy needs to be explained. I hope the Government will do that soon.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for whom I have the greatest respect. At the beginning of his speech, he talked about reductions affecting students or the student population. I would like to draw his attention to the fact that this new Government has prepared since it came into office, in 1984, 45 programs to assist students in Canada. We are not talking only of Vanier or Ottawa but of the whole country, including the Abitibi area, from east to west, as far as the Great North, and one could say that quite effective programs could be set up to help our students. There are exactly 45 programs. The record of this new Government is incredible. You should consult this blue guide on scholarships and grants offered by the Government of Canada that was prepared recently-a little publicity, in passing-which is a very good one.
You are saying that in the Ottawa area there is no construction activity, that building is not going well. However, when I come back from Abitibi, via highway 105, and I arrive in this area, I see construction everywhere. One Museum on one side, another one on the other, a Court House. Moreover, I recently stayed overnight in a hotel, the Westin, and I happened to talk with the owner who told me that during the summer his occupation rate was 92 per cent. I walked in the hotel and, in the lobby, I noticed that people were not from Ottawa, they were tourists. Some even came from as far away as China. There were also tourists from Vancouver. I then decided to call one of my good friends who runs a hotel on the other side, in Hull. The following day I asked him the same question: "Is the situation bad on your side"? He said: "No, my occupation rate improved this year and is about 70 per cent."
So, things are going pretty well now that we have a new Government. Promised, we won't talk about the past. It is mentioned almost every day in the House, but I respect you. We talk a lot about the Department of the Secretary of State ... We can see in the documents that there is an increase of $190 million for the Youth Employment Program which is
part of the Governement's strategy for jobs creation. A little further there is a $650 million increase for the Canadian Jobs Strategy announced in the Budget of May 1985. The increase in the number of man-years is offset by internal reallocation.
Looking at an other area, namely the Treasury Board, we have an increase of $17.4 million in employer contributions to insurance and pension plans due to higher rates. Then we see an increase of $2.4 million and thirteen person-years affected to the Privatization Secretariat responsible for following up on the decision to sell Crown Corporations.
When I come to this place to sit in the House or to work in my office for my constituency, I find that things are going well in Ottawa and even in the area around Ottawa. I tell the Hon Member that I find everything is going very well.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the Hon. Member is interested in the area and takes an interest in projects in my riding which, I may remind him, were launched under the previous administration.
Don't worry, I know all about the Rideau Centre. I was there when it started and I knew what we were letting ourselves in for, twelve or thirteen years ago. Hotels were built in the area. And as far as the National Museums are concerned, we know about that decision, we know where it came from. It was-


An Hon. Member:: A political decision-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -yes, a political decision. It was a political decision to locate the National Gallery in my riding and the Museum of Man in Hull, on the Quebec side. In fact I am delighted that at last we have recognized the importance of museums and are finally starting to build the National Capital of Hull and Ottawa, face to face and not back to back as we used to. We all know these museums will help attract more people and more tourists to the region. I am very pleased the Hon. Member noticed these two major construction projects which were initiated by the previous Government, and I am very proud of them, because I participated in the decision in both cases: the Rideau Centre and the museum called the National Gallery.
So I want to thank the Hon. Member on that score, Mr. Speaker. I just want to remind him that the initiative was taken by the Liberals, and that everything is going well.
As far as youth programs and job-creation programs for youth are concerned, I may remind him I agree with any positive plan for creating jobs and helping young people make their way in this life. I am all for it, and I have no problem with that. However, I maintain that the program was not properly explained to our young people and to the Canadian people, so that people failed to understand what Challenge 86 was about. In many cases, programs simply don't work because the Government has not learned to communicate with its clientele, with the people who are interested in these programs.
June 10, 1986

I am sorry to say this, but the Hon. Member knows this as well as I do. Some programs have been set up, not many, but there are a few. But the problem is that people are not aware of them, they do not know them well, and the Government does not meet the needs properly.
In my constituency, there are 21,000 young people from the post-secondary, university, elementary and secondary sectors. Every year, about 13,000 or 14,000 of them try to find jobs. This year, it was a disaster. And I know what I am talking about, it was a real disaster this year as far as student employment is concerned. We must solve this problem and we will not do it by fighting but by helping each other and by trying to find solutions.
I am aware that the Government established a new policy. They do not want to interfere, they want the private sector to create summer jobs for students. The private sector should be encouraged to do so. So much the better. But when you represent a small constituency, and that the main employer is the federal government, it is difficult to argue those kinds of things. It is most important for us that the Federal Government have well established, clear, generous and well-known programs to solve the problem of youth employment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Beauharnois- Salaberry (Mr. Hudon) on debate.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate this evening, particularly to speak before my many Quebec colleagues, because I am very glad to belong to this Government. For two years now, Mr. Speaker, this Government has shown leadership as much in the field of employment as in the field of international relations.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad because I had the honour to belong successively to these two Departments. First I was Parliamentary Secretary for Employment and Immigration where I took an active part with the Hon. Flora MacDonald in the establishment of the new job-creation programs. Since last January, Mr. Speaker, I have been pleased to be associated with the Department of External Relations where, with the Hon. Monique Vezina, we are launching new programs and revised programs for foreign aid and assistance to Canadian companies.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased as well to take part in this debate because I realize that our opponents have precious little to say because of our concrete results. Mr. Speaker, we have a positive record in both economic and financial sectors.
As you undoubtedly recall, the Minister said this on November 8, 1984: We must reduce the deficit. The way things were going, the deficit was to reach $39 billion. We will close the books next year with a deficit under $30 billion. We simply have to pay our debts.


An Hon. Member:: The Liberals' debts.
Supply


Jean-Guy Hudon: They are the debts of the Liberals, but they are now our debts because we are now the Government. The House will recall that those people governed the country in the mid-seventies when the Minister of Finance mentioned earlier, Mr. MacEachen, announced a deficit of $19 billion. At the end of the year, we had a deficit of $31 billion or $32 billion. However, it was not serious! There was no problem because, at the time, the estimates were generous.
Some of my constituents asked me last week: What have you done for us, what has the Conservative Party done since the elections? It is very simple. We have establised a healthy economy in which the private sector will play a positive role to create jobs.
Mr. Speaker, when you can maintain some of the best interest rates-and they have now gone down-you have cause to rejoice. These are practical results which will not only encourage the Liberals to enter the House, but also give the private sector confidence in the Canadian economy.
This brings me to a specific point which concerns foreign aid. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, at the very beginning of our mandate, we made a commitment to bring the amount of foreign aid up to a rather higher rate than we can actually achieve at this time. There has therefore been talk of major cut-backs. Contrary to what the Liberal speaker said earlier about education, I have to point out that you can speak either in terms of percentages or in terms of net amounts. In fact, we are going to allocate more money in net terms to foreign aid.
The Members opposite often accuse us of saying: Naturally, the Government helps other countries-and I can already hear the questions-when it is unable to help its own citizens. The Canadian public understands us. If we look at the survey on the famine in Ethiopia, we find that 95 per cent of Canadians agree with foreign aid. Indeed, when we help other countries, Mr. Speaker, we help Canadians to develop because we export not only our products, but also our talents. The names Canadian corporations are making for themselves in Africa and Asia are remarkable and recognized throughout the world.
Even if the growth is not as rapid as was foreseen in 1984, Mr. Speaker, we are going to reach just the same 0.5 per cent of our Gross National Product in terms of foreign aid in 198687. And this will have direct spin-offs for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, this 0.5 per cent which will contribute to the integration of our private and public sectors to our foreign aid effort will be achieved following consultations and, finally, through cooperation.
I should like to deal first with consultations. People, Canadians or some of our friends could readily imagine that something like foreign aid is decided by some civil servant working behind the scenes, on the basis of current ideas and fashions, without too much planning.
Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege last January to take part in bilateral meetings with representatives from Niger, Senegal and Gabon, and more recently in Ottawa with those of

June 10, 1986
Supply
Burkina Faso and Zaire. Zaire was last week when we had the honour to welcome Mr. Mubutu Jr. who was here as Secretary of State to sign an agreement of co-operation and dialogue. Mr. Speaker, we spent these three days of negotiation planning our action on the African continent with the support of the Government concerned and in line with our major objective of food self-sufficiency. We had to touch on the problems of hydro power and desertification. Another point is the involvement of women in public affairs and affairs of the State. Tomorrow will mark the beginning of a very important program for the participation of women in development programs, for it is a well-known fact that in all countries which major development problems, and especially in Africa, women have a very significant role to play, and tomorrow will be an important day in that regard.
So after consultation, Mr. Speaker, we enter the concerted action stage because as we very well know Canada is not the only country involved in foreign aid. The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, all those international institutions, the United Nations where again two weeks ago the Minister for External Relations (Mrs. Vezina) announced a 5-year moratorium on the African countries' indebtedness. As important as it may be, Mr. Speaker, to take any action as a country among foreign nations, such action must tie in with that of the large international institutions.
So this is stage two.
And stage three is cooperation, the most aggressive one for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, we have agreements signed both with private industries and universities, labour unions, municipalities, provincial Governments, non-profit organizations that are helping us implement our international cooperation program.
We had recently the Minister for External Relations announce a $ 150-million program called Africa 2000 because it is aimed at Africa in the year 2000, and $150 million were ear marked for the next 5 years, and we agreed that 50 per cent of those funds will be managed by businesses, non-profit organizations. That is a major component of the new direction proposed by the Conservative Party for foreign aid. Governments have no monopoly as regards truth or positive moves in the area of development. This has already been seen in job creation programs. As we always said, jobs are not created by the Government. The Government will create economic conditions for jobs to be created, that is interest rates, investment programs to ensure that the economy by itself will take over.
It is time, Mr. Speaker, we stopped thinking that the federal Government or provincial Governments or for that matter municipal governments can do everything, that they have a monopoly on how to make things go.
Therefore, we will give the necessary tools to non-profit organizations, unions and universities the necessary tools and they will have to manage their business according to the
programs developped with the countries and co-ordinated with big international corporations.
In short, Mr. Speaker, such is the status of foreign aid programs and we know that they have been extremly successful. I only have to say in this House, Mr. Speaker, how proud I was to be with the Minister for External Relations in New York when she spoke. It was one of those special occasions in that lofty hall where a speech was interrupted by our warm applause.
It was quite important for Canada, and the critics were quite constructive about it, our country being a leader in international development, a movement followed by a few countries, perhaps not as much as we would have like, but this will be a landmark and following their return home after having seen the action of the Government of Canada, the other representatives could ponder over it. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say the African and Asian countries as well as all the South American countries warmly applauded that initiative. I was pleased because a few weeks later, we had the honour of welcoming to Ottawa several of those African Ministers and others from other countries who were coming to meet us and tell us how pleased they were to see the constructive and stirring action of the Government of Canada.
This is in short, Mr. Speaker, how we are in a position to maintain our level of foreign aid in spite of reductions applied to all programs including international development. The following question was raised in the House: We are in favour of foreign aid, but reductions are required. Obviously, all Canadians understand the matter. We cannot ask Canadians to make sacrifices while we increase foreign aid. Our foreign and domestic programs will be subjected to the same reduction. However, we must maintain the same rate of growth, because if the Government is now experiencing temporary financial problems, we still have faith in the future. This is the reason why our aid programs are growing at a different rate which Canadians are in a position to sustain.
Well Mr. Speaker, that takes care of foreign aid. As for job creation, the figures speak for themselves and I need not delve into this because our record is going to be most positive. Some of my colleagues will certainly want to speak to it but in this area as in the other, we can see that Canadians are future oriented. We do have a certain tendency. As I was looking earlier at my colleague from Quebec East (Mr. Tremblay) tearing up his papers, it reminded me that there is a propensity to find scandals. My colleague from Quebec East is very aware of it; as a matter of fact, so I am told, they went through his wastebasket. That is why I believe he has good reasons to tear up his papers. They were trying to discover things the party might be doing wrong and that it could be blamed for. With that new approach, Mr. Speaker, if we take the time to look around, we can see that Canadian men and women agree with us and support the initiatives taken by the Government in foreign affairs as well as domestically.
June 10, 1986


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Question or comment. The Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) has the floor.


Mr. Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very pleased to see the interpretation the Hon. Member gives to these polls, because what I gather from them is a totally different conclusion on how the public views the Government. Since the Hon. Member did not comment on this I will ask him what has the Government done about regional development?


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, as far as the Hon. Member's preamble is concerned, according to some of my colleagues there are two kinds of polls but the best is the election results. I remember starting the last campaign in July 1984 with 17 points behind the liberals who kept showing off until we beat them by 18 or 19 points. Therefore, a true poll comes around every four or five years, and we will take care of that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Tomorrow!


Alain Tardif: Enjoy it!


Jean-Guy Hudon: Anyway, that is all you can do as in the case of the Hon. Member on your left. Concerning regional development, Mr. Speaker, we certainly did better than the previous Government. We put an awful lot of money into employment programs-
Mr. Tardif (Richmond

Wolfe): In what? The western banks?


Jean-Guy Hudon: But above all, we succeeded in one area where you failed, with interest rates being at 9 per cent instead of 21 per cent. And that is what we did for regional development. At the time you could not understand that.


An Hon. Member:: Tell us about Domtar!


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a comment which perhaps will be a little less heated. I welcomed the Hon. Member's comments about official development assistance. However, I should like to read from the opening speech of the Secretary of State at the United Nations on September 25, 1984, right after the new Government had come to power. This was at a time when Government Members were saying how terrible the economy was. Recognizing that, the Secretary of State said: "Meanwhile there are urgent questions of human suffering which must be addressed. Our new Government intends to maintain Canada's commitment to reaching .7 per cent of the GNP by 1990 in official development assistance. Despite serious economic problems at home, we shall not turn our backs on the world's disadvantaged people". However, in November they said that they would not be reaching the goal of .7 per cent by 1990 but that they would reach it by 1995. Last February, when the Government brought down a Budget, it said that the economy was performing better than it had
Supply
anticipated. Yet, it went back even further on the commitment, and now the goal of .7 per cent of the GNP will not be reached until the 21st Century.
The Hon. Member referred to the speech of the Minister for External Relations (Mrs. Vezina) at the United Nations. I agree with him that it was well received. Also I agree that generally Canada played a positive role at the United Nations special session on the crisis in Africa. We played a positive role only in comparison with what other countries were not doing.
The fact that we will be making $150 million available over the next five years really does not begin to address the real needs of Africa. The reason we are not doing more is that we are not moving toward the .7 per cent goal as the Secretary of State said in 1984. At that time he made a commitment on behalf of Canadians to the poor people of the world. Now he is breaking that commitment, a commitment which he made on my behalf and on behalf of my constituents to poor people of the world.
The reason we are unable to do more is that the Government is cutting back in that way. We are really giving a paltry sum in comparison with the need. While Canada brought out a moratorium on official development debt, we refused to go along with the need for a debt restructuring conference which would have looked at the entire question of debt for emerging nations. That is one of the more serious questions facing Canada today.
In the final document more non-project aid was requested, and almost all our money is going toward small projects. Small projects are important, but there should be more non-project aid-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


James Douglas Manly: I should like to hear the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary on that.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, of course if we were to meet the wishes of the Secretary General of the United Nations, we could still... He wants us to do more because of the humanitarian role he plays. But two weeks ago, we were at the United Nations, in New York, and it was apparent to every country that in view of the difficult times Canada, as well as the United States are facing, our efforts were quite commendable. You were there yourself my friend and I think that all the nations recognized that. Mr. Speaker, I know that our objectives were set but nevertheless we are going to reach .5 percent of the Gross National Product in 1986-1987 while ... in 1977-1978, there was an opposite trend .49, .48, .45, .40, .41 but now it is on the increase again.
So, we will dispense foreign aid according to our means. We cannot on one hand, ask Canadians to tighten their belt and spend freely on the other hand.
Mr. Speaker, on another point. We rank seven in terms of percentage of the Gross National Product. We come behind

June 10, 1986
Supply
the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium and France.
And then if we compare ourselves to the United States we see that they rank below us in the seventeenth place as in the case for Japan, Italy and Germany which all give less than we do. So we do our share.


George Albert Proud: Those who rank above us do better.


Jean-Guy Hudon: I know, Mr. Speaker, we could perhaps do better, but I will not ask Canadians to make a greater effort than I would ask other countries.
We have a national debt, we want to pay it off and we will ask everybody, in the country and outside the country, to help us reach that objective.
And the seventh place, Mr. Speaker, is still quite honourable; we come after the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium and France. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, we rank among the best countries.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) on a question or a comment.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, having had the pleasure to travel with the Hon. Member and the Minister to the United Nations, I can tell him that we can be satisfied if we just look at ourselves in a mirror, but on the question of foreign development assistance ... the Hon. Member knows very well what my views are on that. I believe Canadians are now dragging the Government along, and they have shown such generosity during the recent events in Africa that the Government was lead to realize that on the question of foreign help, even more support can be forthcoming from Canadians if the situation is properly explained.
I think there is no substantive difference of opinion between my Hon. colleague and myself except that we should not be content to say: Look, we are in seventh position, while a number of others-
I agree with the Hon. Member that the United States could make a greater contribution and that a number of well-off countries could do more than Canada, but some smaller countries are certainly doing better than Canada. We are in sixth or seventh position, but we should not be content with that position, we should assume world leadership in some area. And by becoming the leaders, we could have an even greater say.
But I have just this comment to make: The Government certainly acted because it was being pushed and encouraged by the people of Canada.
And I would like once again, and I know my Hon. colleague is going to respond, but he and I should express our thanks to our fellow Canadians for understanding their international responsibilities. Through their initiative, Canadians have led the Government to take generous action, which in fact-as the
Hon. Member very well knows-caused some uneasiness as several of his colleagues did not share his views.
The Hon. Member is very open to the world. The Hon. Minister is very open, she understands. But I have to say that her problems are not with us in the Official Opposition or in the New Democratic Party. It is within her own Party that she has to fight for comprehension, generosity and openness, not with the Official Opposition or the New Democratic Party.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, I am happy because Canadians not only understood, but also pushed the Government. But above all, I am glad that the Government has established a system that could have been a model for any Government. We said: We are going to match your contributions. Canadians have been generous. Before that, we used to give passively; Canadians used to let the Government act on their behalf without getting involved.
It is true that we were pushed into facing this challenge, but both Government Members and my friend opposite are happy about it.
Secondly, I agree with my colleague who says that our country ranks seventh. We rank seventh but I emphasize the fact that we are a young nation with only 350 years of history. However, we rank first in America. We help Africa and Asia. The six countries ahead of us are European countries that have existed for centuries and most of which have a colonial past. Canada ranks first among American countries for aid and cooperation. I can understand that France would be ahead of us. That country had many colonies in Africa and around the world. Canada does not have a colonial past. We developed our aid policy from scratch and this is why we show leadership internationally.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to enter the debate because it gives me a chance to bring to this House a question that needs to be dealt with, namely, the way we are handling our postal service.
I know that the postal service is not the highest matter on the political agenda. It is not often dealt with by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) or by the Leaders of the opposition Parties although it is a pretty important question to a lot of people. The postal service is vital to most average Canadians.
It is a service that people need and depend upon. It is a service that is not being delivered properly today, and it is a policy question that is being severely neglected by the Government.
The whole perspective from which the Government views the Post Office is a distorted one. It is coloured in ideological tones. When the Government speaks about the Post Office, it talks about deficits and eliminating the deficit in the Post Office. By choosing this language to speak of the Post Office, the Government is revealing its ideological bent and its distorted way of looking at an essential public service.
June 10, 1986


James Douglas Manly: The Government never talks about delivering the mail.


Cyril Keeper: The Government certainly does not talk about delivering the mail and the Government has not come up with any ways to meet that challenge. When the Government talks about the Post Office, it does not talk about a public subsidy or a public service. The Government does not acknowledge that other means of communication are subsidized.
For example, what about telephones? Just about everyone has a telephone in his or her home, although some people on low incomes do not, but telephone service is subsidized. In Manitoba we have a public telephone service, the Manitoba Telephone System. We can take revenues from the lucrative sections of the telephone market and use them to subsidize service for the average person. We can take profits from the revenues that we gain from long distance phone calls or from phone calls which large corporations make as a normal part of business activity and use them to subsidize service for the average citizen. Virtually everyone then can have a telephone and the rates can remain at a reasonable level. That kind of communication is subsidized. So why not subsidize the mail, which is another basic communication service? We subsidize air transportation. Surely no one is under the impression that air transportation is paid for simply by those who buy tickets when they choose to fly.


James Douglas Manly: Especially the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).


Cyril Keeper: Or the Prime Minister with his private fleet of jets carrying along cameras to record "The Life of Brian". That service for a particular individual is subsidized. Surely most Canadians are aware that air travel is subsidized. I hope that the Government would not think of privatizing the airports in order that they not be subsidized publicly or not have a "deficit". The Government, of course, is very creative. I would not want it to take up that idea.
The trucking industry in the country is subsidized. That is another means of communication. The public pays for the roads. Obviously there are some taxes on the gasoline which trucking firms use, but the trucking industry is subsidized. There are all sorts of means of communications in the country which are subsidized. Therefore, why do we single out the Post office and say that there should be no subsidy for it? Why do we say that the Post Office is running at a deficit? Why is the Government so insensitive to the need for this basic service? Why does it not accept the fact that it is legitimate to subsidize a public service?
While the mails may seem like a dull, boring subject, it is something which touches all Canadians. For a mother writing to her son who is away from home attending university, a grandmother writing to her daughter who lives in another city, and a small business person carrying on normal business activities, this is an essential service. A good, sound postal
Supply
service is a means of economic development. It is part of the infrastructure which we need to have a good economy.
How many times have we heard that the vast majority of jobs today are created by small business? Large corporations are no longer the creators of employment. Who depends upon the mails? Is it the large corporate enterprise which can afford a courier service, or the small business person who needs that public service in order for his or her business to prosper?
I suggest that rather than considering the mails to be a drain on the public purse we should look upon it as an investment, as a part of the economic infrastructure which is necessary in order for small businesses to prosper and for communities to benefit from the employment creation capacity of small business.
When the Conservatives talk of deficits they talk from an ideological perspective. They talk from the perspective of government playing too large a role in society. They believe that in order to improve society we must downsize government and that if we do that we will all be more affluent. In fact, it has been suggested that one of the reasons the Government is starving the Post Office and moving in the direction of eliminating the public subsidy at the Post Office is that it wishes to privatize it at a later date.
Once the Government has weakened this service so badly and the public is fed up with the service, it will be publicly acceptable to sell it. Private firms can then cream off the most lucrative large urban markets for mail delivery. We will be left with a second class, bare bones service for other areas of the country which, of course, would have to be paid for out of the public purse. We would still end up having to subsidize this service.
In the last Budget the Government set the goal of financial self-sufficiency for the Post Office. When the Minister speaks of the Post Office in the House he talks about eliminating the deficit and improving service at the same time. We must be a little more realistic than to think that those two objectives can be met without a fundamental change of strategy by the Government.
We know that the Minister has been laying out new plans for the Post Office which he has failed to make public. He is examining options which he has not shared with the Opposition or the public. We believe that the reason he has not been open about his plans for postal service in the country is that his plans are bad news for the people. The plans are for continued and increased cuts in service. What other conclusion can we come to? If he had something to say which people might welcome, I assume he would be laying out his options so that we could all participate in debate and help him make the final decision. It looks very much as though he will be presenting a plan which will be bad news for the people. He is keeping it under wraps and will announce it at the last minute, perhaps on the last sitting day of Parliament or even after Parliament adjourns, hoping to escape public scrutiny and criticism.

June 10, 1986
Supply
If the Minister follows that sly route, if he continues to hide his plans for the Post Office and waits to announce them when the House is no longer sitting in order to avoid public criticism, he will not achieve his objective. If he announces these plans in the summer, the summer will not be quiet for him. We in this Party willl be here watching what he does. We will be waiting for his announcements. Whether he makes them while Parliament is sitting or in what he thinks will be the quiet of summer, we will be here to offer our analyses and critiques of his plans. It would be better for the Minister to share his thoughts about the Post Office with the public and to allow the public to assist him in making the decision.
To bring the issue of mail service closer to home, I point out that there are a lot of people in Canada today who are very angry about the lack of adequate postal service. I use as an example those people who live in new suburban developments. It has been brought to our attention that one developer in Ontario found it difficult to sell the houses he was building because of the lack of postal service. This actually had an impact on his ability to sell houses. People who are living in these communities are fed up and angry with the Government.
People in the community of Nepean, adjacent to Ottawa, mft,with the Minister responsible for the Post Office (Mr. Cote). He told them that he would not proceed with the installation of community post office boxes until after he had made decisions and his plans had been made public and that he would take their views into account. This very day the Post Office is dropping community boxes off in front of houses in the community of Fisher Glen in Nepean. The Minister said that would not happen until after a proper plan for the Post Office was put in place. The residents of that community were reassured when they first met with the Minister. They thought they would get some justice. They were, therefore, quiet about their anger with postal service. They were, therefore, quiet about the fact that they feel very strongly that they are being treated as second class citizens and being discriminated against.
They showed their anger about a week ago at a Nepean City Council meeting where the Post Office was presenting its plans. The city councillors, who are of course political leaders very close to people in their community, responded to that anger and passed a resolution asking their lawyers to take legal action against Canada Post. The resolution then went to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which represents communities like Nepean all across the country. The federation passed a resolution calling upon the Government to give fair and equitable service to all Canadians and to cease and desist discriminating against people living in new suburban developments.
The Government may think that postal service is a mundane matter which it can kind of leave on the sidelines and not pay much attention to. However, as I said before, all Canadians use the postal service so the vast majority are angry about
inadequate service and would like to see the Government take a real hand to develop a strategy which would result in fast, reliable delivery of mail.
People recognize that paying a reasonable subsidy to the Post Office for certain services is a legitimate activity for Government. What they are now beginning to realize is that this Government is more concerned about its own ideological commitment than it is about the feelings of ordinary Canadians. What I mean is that when the Government looks at the Post Office it sees a deficit. It then connects that with its overall plan to eliminate the national deficit, which will bring us to economic recovery and prosperity. However, we need to look at the Post Office on its own merits, not just from the perspective of subsidizing its deficit. We need to ask how we can devise a plan and objectives and priorities for the Post Office so that it will deliver adequate service. We have to recognize the need to subsidize public services. It is a legitimate activity for a Government and a legitimate use of public funds. In no way can it be equated with wasteful spending that Governments get involved in, such as this grandiose enterprise to film the Life of Brian. Perhaps the Government could save money on that kind of activity and devote some energy, thought and creativity to delivering a common, basic service to ordinary Canadians. They are demanding that service and they want it provided in an equitable manner.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments?


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's comments remind me of other speeches we have heard. It is a bit like a meter ticking. Every time a Member of the NDP gets up, he or she wants to add to the deficit and increase budgets. I think that is remarkable. Does the Hon. Member not realize that he should be looking not only at management but also at the productivity of the individuals who work for the Post Office? He should look at the strikes which take place on an ongoing basis. He should look at the unions. Would he like to start looking at both sides of the issue rather than always dumping on the Government and management? Productivity has to come from within.


Cyril Keeper: Would you like an answer?


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Can I finish?


Cyril Keeper: Would you like an answer?


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: I would like to finish my question first. The Hon. Member should realize that it is a two-way street, and the Post Office workers have to start to realize that the longer they continue to confront management and not deliver the service required, the more people are going to go to the private sector for that service.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the intervention from the Hon. Member. I appreciate the opportunity to respond directly to his points. I understand he comes from a rural riding, and I am sure he is aware that Canada Post is reducing
June 10, 1986

rural service and closing rural post offices. It has been doing so for some time now. It is also doing that without seeking the necessary Orders in Council. There is a provision under the Canada Post Corporation Act which says that if the Post Office is going to terminate a rural route or close a post office, it has to get an Order in Council before it does it. Canada Post is closing post offices and eliminating services in his riding, just as it is doing across the country, without getting Orders in Council. Why? Because if it gets an Order in Council there is a 60-day notice required and people are then able to express their views and appeal for redress.
The Government is turning a blind eye to the fact that Canada Post is ignoring its own Act and not giving people notice of a reduction in service. I am sure his constituents are as concerned as are other rural residents whom I have spoken to about adequate service and the way decisions about service are made.
The Hon. Member mentioned productivity of Post Office workers. The first principle of productivity is good management. You have to have well thought out objectives. You have to have a strategy to meet those objectives. The problem with productivity at the Post Office is that the Government has not thought through on how to deliver the service. The Government has not listened to Canadians to find out what their priorities are. It has not looked into how we can achieve those objectives and at the same time give workers a framework within which they can be productive. Without a strategy or plan you cannot have productivity. After all, you have to not only move fast but you need to have a direction in which to go.
If the Government is worried about having to subsidize the Post Office and does not want to do it any more, why does it not consider opening up lucrative areas of the private market for Canada Post to compete in, areas such as parcel delivery? That is a $1 billion market and Canada Post could gain a reasonable share and earn revenue which could then be used to cross-subsidize some basic services. I would like to suggest that one of the reasons the Conservative Government refuses to examine that as a policy option is that the Government does not want to get the business sector mad at it. It does not want the courier services to be angry at them. The Government prefers to have ordinary Canadians who want basic services angry, rather than to have a few large businesses angry at it. That shows the Government's ideological perspective and it shows who the Government listens to. What I am asking the Government to do is to listen to ordinary Canadians who are requesting just and expeditious mail service.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, this service in the Post Office is something that is not new. I think the Hon. Member has been in this House long enough, and I think he can refer back to the time before 1984 before we took power. I do not think it is anything new to everyone here. I say to the Hon. Member that this Government has moved to try to bring services back to the individual Canadians. As long as we have
Supply
confrontations with the unions within Canada Post Canadians are never going to have the security that they can trust Canada Post. I am challenging the Member to indicate to us how we are going to bring the unions to realize they have to change their ways.


Cyril Keeper: I wonder if the Member has noticed that over the last few years under the previous President of Canada Post there has been labour peace at the Post Office. The previous President, although we may have criticized him, and in many cases very legitimately, had a policy of communicating with people. He communicated with the public and he communicated with the unions. They did not always like to hear what he had to say, but he communicated. One thing that has happened since this Government appointed a new President of Canada Post is that there has been no communication. The doors have been closed at Canada Post. Canada Post does not communicate with the public, and neither does the Minister responsible for Canada Post. The Government is moving in ways that will antagonize and anger organized labour at the Post Office.
Just last Friday they dumped one of the labour representatives on the Board of Directors of Canada Post. They did not even talk to the Canadian Labour Congress who had the responsibility for appointing that person. The unions who work and represent the people at Canada Post have been trying, since the new President of Canada Post has been appointed, to have one meeting with him to talk about future prospects at Canada Post. This man refuses to meet with them, refuses absolutely. How do you expect to have a climate of cooperation and a climate that will ensure reliability of service if you do not communicate with people? One of the first lessons this Government has got to learn about the postal service is that if there is going to be good service and peace it has to start communicating.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall) talked about New Democrats always wanting to see increased spending, and he looks, as most Conservatives do, at the Post Office as being a drain on the economy instead of a vital help to the economy. I would like to ask my friend from Winnipeg North Centre what he thinks would be the effect on the Canadian economy of a reduced postal service? What effect is that going to have on small business? How is that going to impact on the total Canadian economy, and what impact will that have on the Government's tax revenue?


Cyril Keeper: I think it is clear that if the Government continues to starve the Post Office, if it continues to water down the postal service, if it continues to tear to shreds whatever service we have had in this country up until now, this will have a negative economic impact. What it will mean is that the many thousands of small businesses across this country will not be able to rely on the Post Office. They need the Post Office to have reliable and reasonably priced service. If the Government continues with its policy, these people will

June 10, 1986
Supply
suffer, their individual businesses will suffer and people will lose employment.
Since this Government has come to office it raised the postal rates. Not only did it raise the postal rates but it raised a lot of other rates, something that did not really come to public attention. Some of the rates that went up had a very detrimental impact on small businesses that were dependent on the postal service in order to move their goods. If these small businesses have to rely solely upon the private sector, then they will have to pay more and more for the services, and some of these businesses simply cannot afford to do it.
I challenge the Government not to stand up and say it is no worse than it was under the Liberals. The Conservatives were elected to take a new direction, to face up to and resolve problems, because we were fed up with the Liberals who just played games with policy. We wanted some substance to be seen in public policy. It is not good enough for a Government to say it is no worse than the Government before it.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the Estimates of the Department of Communications and Culture. I really should call this a reussite trompe-l'oeil. First, because it would seem as if the cultural sector has been reaping benefits over the past few months, but when one examines more closely the record of this Government, it is not quite so bright.
I suggest that we have been duped, and I would say it is the triptych art effect. It is a real trompe-l'oeil. The master has been at work creating the kinds of illusions that would make us feel that we have had a great buffet at the art and culture table.
Yes, activity and moneys have been allocated from the Department of Communications and Culture over the past few months. Let us look to see exactly what has happened. Let us examine the dramatic impact that the cultural sector has had upon the Canadian economy. Then let me focus on what has been happening in the various departments of this Ministry over the past year.
A number of task forces and papers have been initiated by the Minister; the task force on broadcasting at a cost of $2.8 million; the task force on national museums at a cost of $425,000; the task force on funding of the arts at a cost of $833 million; the task force on the film industry at a cost of $134,000; a task force on the National Arts Centre for $319,000; the Green Paper on cultural industries, and I do not have the cost for that; a white paper on the status of the artist at a cost of $50,000; and we have also had federal-provincial consultations for the development of a telecommunications policy. After all these task forces and these papers are collected, and after we, the taxpayers, have paid out in excess of $4,561 million, where are we?
The reports really need to be tabled and then, I guess, we should determine what kind of action to take, but certainly not precipitously, once having laid out taxpayers' money to this extent. Four million plus dollars is a lot of money. If we have
gone to this kind of trouble, why would we consider amending legislation prior to evaluating and examining and then taking these task forces' opinions and reports into serious consideration? Here we are contemplating legislative changes to the Broadcasting Act before we have even seen what the Caplan-Sauvageau report has to say.
Added to these expenditures, what about the millions of dollars spent by the Nielsen Task Force which, according to the arts and culture community, was ineffectively and inefficiently spent with very little consultative process? That is the Nielsen Report. All I can say is that we have had all the sectors of this particular part of our economy studied to death. We have had very efficient studies done prior to the arrival here of the new Government and there was action ready to be taken. With all those studies ready, we really did not need this delaying tactic of all the task forces. However, since they were put in place, let us at least consider them and take those opinions into account before moving ahead.
How was this illusion created? Why has the arts community drunk champagne and celebrated since that Budget night in February, 1986? The budget for the arts community was very good, and I think the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) should be lauded for his fine effort in dealing with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). In February, 1986, the Finance Minister announced the allocation of $75 million, beginning in 1986-87, to fund a number of cultural initiatives. These include $33 million to support the production and distribution of high quality Canadian feature films in domestic and world markets; $13 million to support a new book publishing development program which is much needed; $5 million in 1986-87 to assist the Canadian recording industry; $10 million to be allocated to the Canada Council in 1986-87 to increase its grants programs, including support for performing arts organizations; $3 million to compensate Canadian authors for the use of their works through public libraries; $7 million to allow the Public Archives to improve service; and $4 million to develop means of electronic sharing of information in the library data system. All of these grants have a problem associated with them, on which I will expand later.
I want to remind everyone that while they were busy drinking and eating at the feasting table, it was basically to drown some very sad memories. They will recall that this increase of $75 million does not make up for the cuts made in the November 1984 Economic Statement. Those cuts included the CBC cut-back of $75 million; the CBC high-tech cut of $10 million for equipment; $1.5 million from the National Film Board; $1.5 million from the CRTC; $1 million from the National Arts Centre; $3.5 million from the Canada Council; and budgetary cut-backs from different cultural projects and programs which amounted to $7 million. As well, the freeze on growth at 2 per cent caused a great loss over all. Increased radio licence fees and other charges amounted to $22 million. The grand total loss was $122 million. One only need do some
June 10, 1986

simple arithmetic to learn that the cultural and communication industries in Canada are left with a shortfall of $47 million, at a time when we know that everything costs more.
Let us consider the impact of cultural industries on our economy. I call to the attention of the House a quote by Henry Robertson Luce, who said: "The business of business is to take part in the great society."
Are we being allowed to take part in that great society to the extent that we can and should, particularly when we are being threatened with Americanization of our Canadian society?
Attempting to measure the contributions of culture to the economy must naturally rely on pragmatic definitions of culture. Unfortunately, this ignores all of the intangible and enabling characteristics which define us as a people. When we think of culture we often forget to include the economic contributions of culture. We must measure the economic impact of our cultural industries on our economy in terms of employment, wages paid, revenues generated and some of the other economic variables. Then we must compare this cultural aggregate with a similar total for the entire economy. Not surprisingly, the difficulty comes in deciding what to include in the list of cultural industries.
Statistics Canada includes eight categories when looking at the arts and cultural sector. They are the written media arts sector, which comprises the printing and publishing of books, newspapers and periodicals; the film industry; broadcasting, including radio, television, cable and pay-TV; the record industry, including the production and manufacture of recordings and the manufacture of musical instruments and artists' material; non-profit institutions, such as heritage institutions and libraries; the retail of cultural products such as books and records; the wholesale of cultural products; and Government involvement in the arts.
According to the analysis of Statistics Canada, the direct impact of the arts and culture sector as measured by the Gross Domestic Product-the value of production arising within the geographical boundaries of Canada-was valued at $5.2 billion or 1.7 per cent of the GDP of the whole economy in 1981. I will not deal with the communications sector tonight because it is a complicated area which involves figures that I would like to deal with at another time, in other circumstances.
However, let us address the financial question within the arts industry. The arts industry includes advertising, broadcasting, motion pictures, the performing and visual arts, publishing, and sound and video recording. Arts industry revenue increased 64 per cent, at an average annual rate of 13 per cent between 1977 and 1981, from $4.7 billion to $7.7 billion. I hope that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) does not look for more money from this sector. He should leave it alone because we need more. I want to point out that it was under a Liberal Government that we as Canadians flourished and grew in this vital sector of our economy.
A "census of manufacturers" comparison of the 20 largest Canadian manufacturing industries and the arts industry in
Supply
1981 reveals that the arts industry was the largest, with employment of 234,280; the sixth largest with salaries and wages of $2.5 billion; and the eleventh largest with revenue of $7.7 billion, equal to the Canadian telecommunications industry. As I have indicated, that is the other half of the communications sector with which the Minister deals.
Arts industry revenue amounted to 2.4 per cent of Gross National Expenditure. Using the Gross National Expenditure multiplier of 2.1, the income ripple effect of the Canadian arts industry was at least $16.3 billion in 1981, or approximately 5 per cent of Gross National Expenditure. I suggest that the Nielsen Task Force could have taken that into consideration.
The fine arts, in which the primary motivation is art for art's sake, also have a significant direct economic impact. While firm figures are not available, an estimate can be developed. In 1981-82, the Canada Council provided $39 million to some 793 arts organizations. On average, Canada Council support represented approximately 10 per cent of total expenditures by arts organizations, or $390 million. If one assumes that Canada Council supports about 85 per cent or 86 per cent of total fine arts activity, then the Canadian fine arts generated $449 million in direct economic activity in 1981. These are the latest figures that I have in this field.
If one assumes that earned revenue represented approximately 30 per cent of total expenditure, then it is estimated that spectators spent an additional $143 million on restaurants, bars, hotels, taxis and souvenirs, ancillary to ticket purchases. However, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) suggested that we close those facilities at the National Arts Centre and turn them over to the private sector.
Accordingly, in 1981, it is estimated that total fine arts-related expenditure was $592 million. Using the Gross National Expenditure multiplier of 2.1, the income multiplier effect of the fine arts was at least $1.2 billion.
There are two distinct arts-related employment populations. When we consider these jobs together, they include 414,000 workers, or 4 per cent of the Canadian labour force in 1981. In fact, arts-related employment is nearly as large as the agricultural labour force and total federal Government employment, including Crown corporations. The first group is the arts labour force which is made up of workers who use arts-related skills in their day-to-day jobs, such as artists and arts technicians, including curators, librarians and camera persons. Between 1971 and 1981, the arts labour force increased 74 per cent as compared to 39 per cent for the total labour force. In 1981, the arts labour force included 278,255 workers.
The second group is the arts industry labour force made up of workers employed in art industries such as advertising, publishing, motion pictures, live staged events, fine art schools, libraries, and so on. Only 35 per cent of the arts labour force are employed in the arts industry. Between 1971 and 1981, the arts industry labour force increased 58 per cent as compared to

June 10, 1986
Supply
39 per cent for the total labour force. In 1981, the arts industry labour force included 234,280 workers, of whom 52 per cent were men and 48 per cent were women, compared with 60 per cent men and 40 per cent women in the total labour force. Artists made up 24 per cent of the arts industry labour force, technicians 18 per cent, administrators 8 per cent and other support personnel, 50 per cent.
So much for the detail. Now let us look at the impact on a number of the concerned cultural industries or agencies. I would like to address my remarks with respect to the Canada Council, the National Arts Centre, the National Museum, the National Library and the Public Archives. Let us start with the budgetary restraints, which has been the situation for Canada Council. Between 1975-76 and 1984-85, inflation in Canada ran at an average annual rate of over 10 per cent. Prices more than doubled. While it seems that the war against inflation has been won, the real value of the parliamentary appropriation to the Canada Council decreased at an average rate of almost 1 per cent per year. During the same period, however, total federal current expenditures increased at an average annual rate of 2.6 per cent. In the February 1986 Budget, the Minister of Finance announced that an additional $10 million would be allocated to the Canada Council in 198687 to increase its grants, including support for performing arts organizations. There seems to be some controversy between the Canada Council and the Department of Communications over how this money will be administered. The Department is telling Canada Council that the money can only be used for support for the performing arts, while the announcement in the Budget indicated that the money was for all grant programs, including the performing arts.
The Department of Communications has said that if the money is not used for the performing arts then Canada Council will not receive the additional $10 million. So much for arm's length. I would suggest that that relationship between the Government and Canada Council is at risk. I might suggest that this arm's length is becoming more shoulder to wrist. And the situation still exists that Canada Council does not have its money.
Organizations in the arts community are telling us that they are worried about increasing interference from the government department itself, that once new programs are initiated and if they are jointly managed, new problems are going to be encountered.
Let us look at the National Arts Centre. Since 1978-79, there has been a widening gap between the actual annual appropriation from Parliament to the National Arts Centre and the appropriation if inflation were allowed for. At present, that cumulative gap is $17,338,000. Thus, the National Arts Centre has been expected since 1978-79 to conduct eight years of programming with less than seven years of funding. This has drastically reduced the centre's ability to dream the Canadian dream for the future. As well, there has been a lack of desire on the part of the Government to indicate funding to allow for long-range planning by the centre. This is considered
something of a handicap for an agency where commitments must be made often years in advance. As well, the National Arts Centre is restricted in its sources of funding. The tradition in Europe has been for the state to be the massive supporter of the arts, and the tradition in the United States has been to leave it to the private sector. Canada finds itself, as usual, half way between the two. Therefore, I would like to suggest that we have to find Canadian solutions to Canadian problems.
I would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the thoughts of Don MacSween, Director General of the National Arts Centre, who said:
-We begin a dream-but this is a dream, as they say, like a play. It is a play in progress. And it is so short a distance, financially, between fulfilling that dream and letting it die.
It is a short distance. I would like to suggest that we do not sacrifice our culture and creative juices. Yes, I know it takes money and that we have to tighten our belts right now. But if the Minister of Finance can find $1 billion to save the depositors who already received $60,000 as a result of the Western Bank disaster, $600 million to assist in the purchase of Gulf Canada and some $56 million to change the colour of our soldiers' uniforms, I would hope he could find the needed funds for the balance of our agencies. At some other time I will deal with the National Museums, the Archives and the National Library.
I would say that the buffet table to which we went is short of a considerable amount of dollars. We have not found all the answers to funding. I would like to recommend strongly that since the cultural community needs more dollars, we should move as quickly as possible, following the tabling of the Caplan-Sauvageau Report, the Museum report and other reports, so that we can rectify this problem within this constituency.


Mr. Edwards:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with rapt attention to the opinion and numbers of my hon. friend opposite. While I respect her integrity in terms of dealing with the truth, she has come down on both sides of many issues, as is the Liberal practice, I have a couple of questions for the Hon. Member. Just before getting to them, I would like to set the record straight. I am sure it was an unintentional slip of the tongue that assigned the Bovey Report on the funding of the arts a price tag of $833 million rather than $833,000. I would comment on the wind-up line about the purchase of the Gulf assets in western Canada. The price was closer to $800 million rather than $600 million, but that was financed entirely out of the resources of Petro-Canada rather than by going to the Canadian taxpayers, as was the Liberal practice.
With reference to the Department of Communications and Culture, I would also underline the fact that we have a far more lively legislative agenda in that Department this year. For 11 years under the Liberal administration, there was no legislation from the Department of Communications. We have currently three Bills, with a far reaching copyright Bill expected in the fall-winter of 1986-87.
June 10, 1986

The positive aspects of the Hon. Member's speech could have been written by the Minister himself. However, I do want to ask the Hon. Member if she does not favour federal-provincial consultation. She appeared to be criticizing the expenditure of funds. I agree with the Hon. Member that reports will need to be tabled and that precipitous action should not be taken. But I do suggest-and I would like her response-that expeditious action should be taken rather than, perhaps, precipitous action. The question was asked why present legislation before the task force report? I would like to ask the Hon. Member what legislation she is referring to. I would also like to ask the Hon. Member if she does not realize that the Nielsen Task Force was approaching its mandate in communications and culture from the point of view of management rather than the other more esoteric values, which we all cherish. Does the Hon. Member not recognize that fact? I think we had a marvellous-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but I would like to give ample time to the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) to respond. Following that, there is another question.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary at least recognized that the Minister could have written that speech. The Minister did not write that speech. The Minister has created the problem of a buffet table which is rather bare.
With respect to the Nielsen management team, I strongly suggest that the Hon. Member reread the report. If that is management, it is no wonder we are having the problems we are presently having under Conservative management.
With respect to the legislation about which the Hon. Member inquired, I suggest that he take a look at the facts. I ask him if he remembers speaking to me about tabling Bill C-20, which has to do with broadcasting.
In terms of being precipitous as opposed to expeditious, I suggest that the Hon. Member not be precipitous but that he be expeditious and await the proper timing. Timing is something which does not seem to be of the first order under Conservative management at this time.
The Hon. Member said that there were no legislative measures undertaken by this Government. I recommend that he take a look at Bill C-58, which the Government has been trying to move around. I suggest that the Hon. Member take a look at cross-media ownership, which the Government has also done away with. I suggest that there was no pay-TV, no specialty services, no specialty tiers, no Cancom, no stereo audio, no third network and no Telidon. I suggest to the Hon. Member that we undertook many constructive measures which moved the whole area forward. If they had not moved the area forward, I could not have read into the record the type of forward movement we saw with respect to the 1971-81 time span which showed the strength and importance of this sector.
Supply
This showed why the Minister is able to wield the power that he has to wield. He has jobs about which he is talking. He has big money about which he is talking. He is talking about big business.
When Members opposite talk about big business, that is the area in which they like to work. So do we. However, we are more conscious about what we are doing with respect to Canadians in the field of arts and culture. I am suggesting to the Hon. Member that an excellent study has been done. There was also a task force with respect to film. I am suggesting that these types of studies did not have to be repeated; we could have acted on what was already presented. There was a Bill drawn up. What the Conservative Party did was take it and split it into two Bills. So, yes, the legislative plate is filled-it is filled with a Bill which we drew up and which the Conservatives have divided. They have added a few additional touches which I think may improve it. This is something which could have been done around a table in committee. The amendments could have been made there instead of splitting the Bill into two parts.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) a question. I listened with some interest to her speech. She certainly sounds knowledgeable. I am impressed with her description of what is going on in the cultural industry and the shortcomings of the Conservative Government. I think she has made many good points. Listening to a member of the Liberal Party speak to the cultural industry and to cultural policy, or to any other area of policy, leaves one with the impression that we presently have of the Liberal Party; that is, it is not sure as to where it is going. This is the puzzlement I had in listening to the Hon. Member.
The Liberal Party does not seem to be sure of its own commitments. In the past it has undertaken some good initiatives. However, the impression we have of the Party today is one that does not quite know where it is going. It is not quite ready to tell people what its commitments are. It is beginning to look like the Conservative Party looked when it was out of office. Members of that Party were simply waiting for the Government to defeat itself. I am wondering how much confidence Canadians can put in that type of political strategy. Can the Hon. Member tell us something about the commitments of her Party in a way which would convince us that it now has a series of serious commitments which will deal with the substance of public policy should it end up on the other side of the House again?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to my colleague from the New Democratic Party that he not worry about where the Liberal Party is going. We are going right across the floor in a period of about two years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Finestone: I do not think that should concern the Hon. Member too much. However, it might concern my colleagues on the other side of the House. I suggest to the Hon. Member
14220

June 10, 1986
Supply
that we know where we are going. We know where we have been and we know the road to get to where we have to get. So don't worry too much about us.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Beauce (Mr. Bernier) on debate.


Gilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I know this is exactly what millions of Canadian families are thinking this evening.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), on a point of order.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member for Beauce (Mr. Bernier) deserves more respect, and I wish Conservative Members would stop laughing at him and listen.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We have had a debate today, and I think everything ran smoothly all day. I would ask Hon. Members not to spoil this last hour of debate, and I say this to Members on both sides of the House.
The Hon. Member for Beauce (Mr. Bernier).


Gilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I have noticed that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) is not a paragon of good manners. As you know, Mr. Speaker, in 20 months our Government has created a climate conducive to the economic renewal we are now enjoying. We started by giving the Canadian private sector back its confidence, which was very important. As the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) said this morning, he was delighted to announce that for the second consecutive year, the rate of growth of our expenditures was virtually zero. And if we take into account the $500 million cutback, the rate of growth is 0.2 per cent, like last year.
We have to go back to the immediate post-Korean War period, as the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise) said, to find such a low rate of growth in the Government's operating expenditures for two years in a row.
Mr. Speaker, this very modest growth rate stands in sharp contrast to what this country has seen in the past under the Liberal Government. For fourteen years, from 1979 to 1984, the average annual growth rate in the voted portion of the Main Estimates ... you voted yourself during that time, and I am referring to the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi)... the average annual growth rate reached a high of 36.8 per cent in 1975-76. It was not coincidence that such a situation prompted the Auditor General, Kenneth Dye, to declare in his report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1976, that Parliament and indeed the Government had lost or were about to lose effective control of the public purse, and that was our emphasis during the last election campaign. The previous Government had lost control over public expenditures, so the
people gave us their confidence and I am sure they are not disappointed this evening.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians put their faith in this Government because they realized that we were qualified to improve management here. We were faced with an undescribable administrative chaos.


An Hon. Member:: After 20 years!


Gilles Bernier: So we restored order and used common sense in financial matters. It is unfortunate that the media do not comment on this very often, but knowing that millions of Canadians are watching Commons proceedings on television this evening, they will be able to find out what we have accomplished.
Over the last 20 months, Mr. Speaker, a number of measures have been implemented to restore efficiency in the management of personnel, programs, and assets of the federal public sector, something which we had not seen for quite some time. The impact of these measures can now be seen not only in our efforts to ensure a strong economic recovery, but also in the Government's commitment to give top priority to productive public affairs management.
We draw some inspiration from the private sector in Canada and, since I come from a region which has been described as the kingdom of small-and medium-size businesses, I am in a position to tell you that our Government has made the right decision. The most obvious indication of its management initiatives is the substantial reduction in expenditures and the increase in revenues which were achieved in response to our commitment to lower the deficit and to manage more efficiently the federal programs and organizations which are our responsibility. In a broader context, Mr. Speaker, the various management improvement measures taken by the Government during the last year and a half will have wide-ranging consequences on the future management of Government human and financial resources, as well as on the allotment of resources to federal programs and organizations. The total effect of these measures will be to create a framework in which Public Service managers will have the means and the incentive to manage public funds economically, efficiently and effectively.
First, in terms of significant measures, let us look at human resources management and the implementation of a comprehensive framework for human resources planning which incorporates management of this vital resource with program and expenditure planning and management. We have also suggested an improvement in labour-management relations including a comprehensive approach to contract negotiation, reinforcement of the staff relocation policy and agreements on principle about a major reform of Public Service pension plans and the development of a dental insurance plan, a voluntary early retirement program for senior public servants and managers to give new career opportunities to talented Public Service managers, the launching of a joint union-management
June 10, 1986

initiative on the principle of equal pay for work of equal value to develop an action plan to apply this basic principle throughout the Public Service, as well as the resumption of collective bargaining after expiry of the six and five wage restriction program and the successful negotiation of moderate pay increases in accordance with the difficult financial position of the Government.
It has also been proposed that we re-instate performance incentives for Public Service administrators by applying the principle of remuneration based on merit which had been fully applied only in two of the eleven previous years and that we implement a new productivity premium system to put even more emphasis on efficient and economical management in the Federal Public Service.


Mr. Rossi:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) on a point of order.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Beauce should know that quotations 309 to 311 of the fifth edition of Beauchesne strictly forbid to read a speech. In addition, Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of the House to the fact that the chief whip of the Government has ear-phones other than those allowed by the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Beauce (Mr. Bernier) may continue his speech. The second point of order is probably well founded, and I did say probably.


Gilles Bernier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Of course, when you use notes to make a speech, you are sure not to make any mistakes. I observe an obvious lack of good manners on the part of the Hon. Member for Bourassa and I would appreciate it if he did not make such offensive comments.
I was talking about expenditure management, Mr. Speaker. We have-


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Bourassa.


Carlo Rossi: I have made comments, but they were not obscene ones. I want them on the record, because there was nothing obscene about it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member for Beauce (Mr. Bernier) continue his remarks?


Gilles Bernier: I never thought I would stir up so much interest among Members of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker. I was referring to the management of expenditures.
So, we have an enormous machine which we must rid of its fat. And when I say this, I am not looking at any Member of the Opposition in particular. Mr. Speaker, we have a task force which will carry out an exhaustive examination of Federal programs
Supply
under the direction of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), to identify areas of overlapping and duplication and possibly improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Federal programs. We will act to directly reduce the overhead of Departments and Crown Corporations and strictly control the future growth for the purpose of improving productivity and administration.


An Hon. Member:: This will not take 20 years!


Gilles Bernier: The President of the Treasury Board has implemented new stringent ways to examine potential loan guarantees in order to minimize the risks of loss to the State due to default and in order to share the risks more equitably with the guarantors of the private sector.
We have several measures to propose, but the adoption of new accounting principles for Canadian accounts to meet favourably the concern expressed-


George Albert Proud: Come on, leave your notes alone!


Gilles Bernier: Listen, you from Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme)... the concern expressed for a long time by the Auditor General concerning traditional financial statements. The Auditor General has published-


George Albert Proud: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) on a point of order.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has drawn my attention. I know he is much too talented to use notes prepared by other people. He could give us a much better lesson in the Opposition if he stopped reading from those notes. There is no sense in that. He is much too good for that!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. Member for Beauce (Mr. Bernier).


Gilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, in the Beauce area we have a reputation for not doing or saying anything just anyhow. So I am drawing from my notes. These are personal notes I put down this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. They are intended both for Opposition Members and the people who are watching the debate on TV and in the gallery.
I know the Auditor General published hundreds and hundreds of pages in which he dealt with the mismanagement and waste of public funds by the previous Government. We have already taken steps. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) to this day has saved nearly $100 million by selling property built and furnished for friends of the Liberal Party, hundreds and hundreds of vacant lots that had been bought by friends of the Government of the day and we are now putting them up for auction.
Mr. Speaker, among other proposals, there will be increased delegation-


Jean-Claude Malépart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

June 10, 1986
Supply


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) on a point of order.


Jean-Claude Malépart: I submit the Hon. Member for Beauce (Mr. Bernier)-normally Beauce people have dignity and courage. He had just made a charge. Will he give the name of one friend? If not, let him withdraw if he is not sure about that!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This is a matter for debate. The Hon. Member for Beauce (Mr. Bernier) has the floor.


Gilles Bernier: I think he is raising a point of disorder, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, you could recognize the Hon. Member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) later. He wants to take up my time.
Among the other fine management practices-


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie is rising on a point of order.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants to lay charges, it is more important that he should have the guts to give names or to withdraw his comments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret but this is a matter of opinion. The Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie may perhaps be recognized later this evening. This is a matter of debate and not a point of order.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) on a point of order.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, a point of order is not a matter of debate. The Hon. Member has laid charges against some friends. He did not mention names-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Unfortunately this is not a point of order. The Hon. Member for Beauce (Mr. Bernier).


Gilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your wise decision. I think if I started counting all the friends of the Liberal Party who benefitted under this plan for 25 years, it would take me all night.
Another example of good manaqgement, Mr. Speaker. In 20 months, the Conservatives have reduced the number of Government flights by 22 per cent and the number of flying hours by 23 per cent, as compared with a 12-month period under the Liberal Government, resulting in savings of $2.5 million. That is how we see it.
Mr. Speaker, in the May Budget, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced cutback objectives totalling 15,000 person-years in those parts of the Public Service under the jurisdiction of Treasury Board.
These reductions, spread over five years, will start in fiscal year 1986-87, with a 2 per cent reduction from the 258,222 person-years indicated in the Main Estimates for 1985-86. These cutbacks will continue at the rate of 1 per cent annually, until 1990-91.
Mr. Speaker, in 1986-87 these cutbacks will save $150 million, which will be applied to reduce the deficit, and when the cutback objective of 15,000 person-years is reached in 1990, the accumulated savings will exceed $1.5 billion, while recurring annual savings will be about $0.5 billion.
The Government intends to reduce the size and cost of the permanent Public Service required to administer federal programs, while at the same time ensuring that essential aspects of Government such as service to the public, transportation and security services are maintained. This is very important.
The reductions will be achieved thanks to increased productivity, the privatization of certain federal activities and, should it turn out to be profitable, the signing of deals for certain others.
The measures advocated by the Task Force on Program Review will continue to enable the Government to single out those sectors where person-year reductions might be needed because of duplication or program redundancy.
In this context, every effort has been made and will continue to be made to achieve cut-backs through attrition. Innovative staff redeployment policies which were endorsed by public service unions before implementation in 1985 will contribute to reduce lay-offs to a minimum.
Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Board policy will continue to be that any approved inclusion of person-years in Supplementary Estimates during a given fiscal year that deviates from cutback objectives, be compensated during the same fiscal year by cancelling person-years authorized in other controlled parts of the Public Service.
The President of the Treasury Board was very pleased this morning to talk about his new initiatives which will have a positive influence on the whole Public service and on Government spending.
The Treasury has administered our finances wisely. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we should be confident that this Government, in the second half of his mandate, will restore order to the Public service and breathe some fresh air into programmes which, in many cases, were contrary to public interest.
Now that the deficit is reduced and under control, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians will appreciate what we have done to lower the very heavy deficit we inherited when we took over.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it would be very much in order that we congratulate tonight the President of the Treasury Board and his staff.
June 10, 1986


An Hon. Member:: Even the Liberals are applauding on that one, what a thrill!


Gilles Bernier: I notice that even the Liberals and a few New Democrats are applauding for what I just said.


George Albert Proud: Because we now know who wrote the speech!


Gilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Government has a very good financial record. We have shown our mettle in the first 20 months, and I am confident that Canadians will trust us through the second half of our mandate and re-elect us in 1988.


Lucie Pépin: Wish you luck!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata).


Mr. Nunziata:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to ask my conservative colleague a question. I wish to congratulate my colleague on his speech. He read it very well in French. However, Mr. Speaker, the substance of that speech laisse beaucoup a desirer.


An Hon. Member:: Leaves a lot to be desired.


John V. Nunziata: Leaves a lot to be desired. The Conservative Member really took the cake when he spoke about the record of the Liberal Government-
The Hon. Member has the temerity and the unmitigated audacity to talk about the Liberal record of Government. The Conservative Party now has a record of its own. Is it a record, we on this side of the House ask, to be proud of?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


John V. Nunziata: Hon. Members opposite say that it is a record to be proud of. However, the Conservative record of government consists of ministerial resignations, tuna scandals, bank failures, defections, and the use and abuse of Hercules aircraft. The Conservative record of Government consists of attempts to reduce the deficit on the backs of the disadvantaged in Canada.
I want to ask the Hon. Member whether it is fair, given the Conservative Party's paranoia in respect of balancing the Budget, to do so on the backs of the disadvantaged in society. We have found over the last two years that the Conservative Party has tried to reduce the deficit on the backs of the disadvantaged. Is it fair, equitable, and just to do what the Conservative Party has tried to do over the last 20 months?


Gilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston must be preparing for his leadership campaign
Supply
in November. He takes every opportunity to come forward, especially when his leader is away.
I would simply like to reply to the Hon. Member who is just wasting away the time of the House that business people in Canada and all those who got one of the 700,000 new jobs in Canada in the past 20 months are grateful for what we have been doing for them.
Mr. Speaker, all our measures are fair and equitable. I think that we have shown during the first twenty months of our mandate that we can meet the aspirations of Canadian men and women in all sectors. We have no reason to be ashamed of our balance sheet or to let the public look at it.


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, about one year ago, the Government used its overwhelming majority to give speedy passage to Bill C-25 on agricultural stabilization. That was only on year ago. I would like to hear the comments of the Hon. Member because, last year at this date, all the Members from Quebec were remarkably silent. This year, they are rising to speak. The session is nearly over, but they are rising to read speeches prepared by the Department to give evidence of the good management of this Government. I would therefore like to ask the Hon. Member for Beauce (Mr. Bernier), who has farm producers in his constituency, how he can reconcile his statements of good management with the unworthy action taken against Quebec potato producers. You have conned the Quebecers. How do you reconcile that with your statement of good management?


An Hon. Member:: That is unparliamentary.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) to withdraw the last remarks he has just made, out of respect for the House.


Alain Tardif: I wish to substitute to these remarks the expression-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to simply withdraw his remarks, out of respect for the House, following which I will allow him to make one additional comment, if he so wishes.


Alain Tardif: Indeed I withdraw my remarks. Considering what you have just said, I will continue. Mr. Speaker, I was about to direct a question to the Hon. Member for Beauce (Mr. Bernier). I should like him to explain to me in an intelligent way, without using the notes provided by the Department, how he can reconcile his statements concerning a sound administration with the fact that Quebecers generally and specifically potato growers have been denied several tens of millions of dollars?


An Hon. Member:: Impeccable!


Gilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that Members opposite are obliged to follow the remarks made by the Hon.

June 10, 1986
Supply
Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) and then apologize later on. I noted that there is a conspiracy-


Alain Tardif: Answer the question!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh! Throw him out through the big door!


Gilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker ... Mr. Speaker, because I know the Hon. Member in question claims to be knowledgeable in the area of agriculture, let me say that we had promised farmers a long term dairy policy and we have delivered it. Mr. Speaker, I should like to indicate here-


Alain Tardif: You don't understand anything! I am talking about potatoes: Don't you know the difference?


Gilles Bernier: Are you going to tolerate this kind of language, Mr. Speaker? I hope the media tomorrow morning will mention the behaviour of these Hon. Members.
Mr. Speaker, I have here figures that will fool no one. A net increase of $26 million in the Estimates. A net decrease of 360 person-years. Here: a $53 million increase in the Canadian Forestry Service for various changes, to the workload and program, including regional economic development agreements, REDA'S. An increase of $45 million for the federal-provincial crop insurance program. An increase of $22 million in aid to drought-afflicted farmers in Western Canada. An increase of $17 million due to higher wage costs, but a net increase of $14 million for various increases in the workload. I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker. I see my time is up, but I hope you will request apologies from those Members whose behaviour is unworthy of people sitting in an assembly. I feel there is a lack of order, a lack of respect for the people of this country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The last question or comment will be by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) prior to resuming debate.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Beauce (Mr. Bernier). Today he speaks like a true Conservative, a strong Conservative, a true Conservative, a true rightist. I have heard it said that on other occasions the Hon. Member did not give the same impression. I have heard it said that on other occasions he had more balanced views. He was more practical, perhaps pragmatic, but today he acts as a true rightist. How is it that he changed his approach? What happened that made him change his views?


Gilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I fail to see the connection between the Hon. Member's comments and the present debate. I must point out that our party will never accept the socialist measures which the Hon. Member has advocated all through
the day. Canadians accept our policy but they will never approve the socialist measures advocated by the Hon. Member. Moreover, I do not see any relation between his comments and the debate held today.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, in the few moments left in this debate there are one or two things that I want to say. I have been somewhat perplexed over the course of almost two years by the Government's reliance on polling to tell the Government what it should or should not be doing. Hidden in the expenditure Estimates that we are about to approve this evening are countless numbers of dollars that have been used by the Government to poll the public of Canada in an attempt to satisfy on a day-to-day basis what certain people might believe is necessary.
First, about polling, it is interesting that this Government like the last Government has found its own polling companies among its friends spending tens of thousands, if not millions, of dollars on pollsters, supplying them with a steady stream of money day after day, week after week, year after year to try to identify what it is the public of Canada really wants. Why is the Government doing this? The Tory Government is doing this because, when it started out, it did not have any policy worth talking about.
I think we can all remember the Tories saying that they were going to be a better Government, whatever that means. They were going to be better than the Liberal Government. That is certainly rising to great heights. However, the Tories were going to be better than the previous Liberal Government. Better at what, Mr. Speaker? The Tories said they were going to be better at a number of things but they did not tell us they were going to be better at patronage. They are better at that. They did not tell us they were going to be better at spending money on their friends in order to keep them in business, but they are better at that.
I thought tonight I would take a moment or two to run over some of the things that people I know are concerned about. Earlier this evening I took a few moments and did a poll of my own. I thought to myself that it might be helpful to seek out from some average, albeit some young, Canadians what they thought they would like to hear the Parliament of Canada speaking about. What is it they are concerned about that they do not hear addressed on a regular basis? What is it that these young people would like to have heard spoken about tonight but until now they have not been able to hear about? Let me run through quickly what they said because I think it is enlightening to say the least. It does reflect a concern not only of those individuals, but I suspect-in fact I am sure-a concern of a large number of people in that age group, in the late teens and early twenties, who live in many parts of Canada and who represent, if one were to test it accurately, a good cross-section of the population of Canada in that age group. What did they say to me? They asked, why is Parliament not talking about the cost of university funding? Why is there no emphasis placed on the cost to young people of
June 10, 1986

providing themselves with an education in order that the future of Canada could be secured?
I wondered about that. I realized that the next point raised was tied in very closely to it. The next young person to whom I spoke said: "I do not hear much being said about jobs for youth". You can see the tie-in right away. Young people wanting not only to improve themselves but to improve the society in which they live cannot get the money from the sources that used to make money available. Neither can they find jobs, jobs that they need in order to survive not only for the purpose of going to school but for the purpose of developing skills and of providing for the future.
I then asked what other area they thought the Parliament of Canada ought to be discussing on this important evening as we set about to vote on an expenditure of $116 billion plus. I said that maybe Parliament should discuss the Government's propensity to subsidize business. Why is it that the Government seems to be able to find money to subsidize business through various tax relief programs, directly through government grants, and through all kinds of agreements it enters into through services rendered or not rendered depending upon who you listen to, but cannot find money to put into jobs for youth and cannot find money to provide young people with an opportunity to complete their education?
As we pursued the matter I asked whether there were any other questions which they felt the Parliament of Canada ought to be dealing with. You, Mr. Speaker, will not be surprised to hear this, and I know that the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) will be in full support of it. Within the Bill which we will be dealing with in less than 20 minutes there is little, if anything, to encourage anyone in Canada to believe that the Government is committed in any way, shape, or form to pursuing the goal that the majority of young Canadians believe is important, that being nuclear disarmament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: I do not see any commitment in the expenditure program of the Government to pursue that goal. Yet, among young people in Canada that is a goal, alongside the others which I have mentioned, that is of vital importance. That is not because it happens to be fashionable. They recognize, unlike the Tory Party and, apparently, the Parliament of Canada excluding a few-70 to be exact, or 71 including you, Mr. Speaker-that nuclear disarmament is a goal which should be pursued by this Parliament on a day-to-day basis and that it is the only thing which, in the final analysis, makes much sense. Yet, where is the money in the expenditures which we are going to be asked to vote on tonight for that particular pursuit?
Beyond that I asked a number of other questions. The question was raised of how one gets more money into the hands of young people in order to develop sporting activities.
Supply
We just watched a number of Canadians playing a game in Mexico City which we are not renowned as being expert in. We watched young people playing that game at the level of many countries which have been playing it for perhaps a hundred years. We saw them playing up to the level of countries which are generally recognized as being the best in the world. We did not win, but many of those who have been in the finals in years gone by did not win this year either. Not to have succeeded this year in getting into the final round is hardly a measure of Canada's ability to participate.
Young people told me that if we are going to do better, if we are going to raise Canada's image in the world, if we are going to have quick and valuable recognition of the worth of the youth of Canada, the Parliament of Canada should take some time to talk about activities in sports and physical fitnesss.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: The Parliament of Canada should set aside just a little bit of time to discuss that aspect of cultural and physical life in Canada. From that we draw world recognition and significant benefit. One cannot find much to commend that in these particular expenditures.
I was asked where the expenditure is on cultural and foreign exchange. How do we get to know about what goes on in other parts of the world? Where is Canada's commitment to educating our young people about the nature of life in the rest of the world? How do we encourage young people from other parts of the world to come to Canada to find out about the kind of democratic society in which we live, the kind of opportunities which exist here, and the way in which we have developed? Where do we find within these expenditures the necessary dollars for that kind of undertaking? They are not there.
If we are going to play a role in the world-and there are many who think we can, including myself-if we are going to be a leader within the Commonwealth and if we are going to have something to say about what is going on in South Africa, Central America and other parts of the world which are facing tremendous economic and social upheavals, we must understand on a first-hand basis the activity and lifestyle within those countries.
Where do we find the necessary moneys to ensure that our youth are able to learn about those kinds of problems which are absolutely foreign to the lifestyle of most Canadians? How do we get young people to understand what it is like to go to bed at night and not know whether you will wake up in the morning? How do you get them to understand the kinds of atrocities which are being committed in South Africa without showing them, either directly or by clear indication, what is going on in those parts of the world? How do we encourage people there to continue their struggle for a democratic society if, when we look at the expenditures of one of the Governments in a free part of the world which has the capacity to generate wealth, we see no clear expenditure to enable our youth to

June 10, 1986
Supply
become educated in those very important human world-type problems?
I, therefore, suggest that the little poll I took is much more reflective of what the public of Canada is thinking about than is the poll taken by Gallup, the poll taken by Angus Reed, or the polls taken by any number of other pollsters. The poll that is important is the poll you take by speaking to people in Canada and asking them what debate they would like to take part in if they could be in Parliament tonight. The things I am mentioning are the things which the youth of Canada are now concerned about.
There are those in Canada who continue to be concerned, with justification during this Government's regime, about ensuring that we recognize, not only the duality of our country but also its multicultural nature. We must recognize the necessity to draw into the Canadian process, the parliamentary process, a good cross-section of those who represent a variety of cultures.
How do we tell people that we are doing our best in that regard when, as my colleague from Thunder Bay constantly says, we cannot even work out a satisfactory arrangement with the Japanese Canadians who were denied their human and civil rights during the Second World War? How do we hold ourselves up as champions of a multicultural society? Where do we find in these expenditures moneys sufficient to meet our obligations to those people? My colleague has constantly raised this with the Minister who is now responsible for the issue and with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and others.
What response do we get? The Government says that it would like to do something as long as it does not cost very much. It would like to recognize the problem, but it would not like to recognize it financially. The Government hopes that somehow or other it will be able to get the problem resolved, but it certainly would not want it to be resolved if it will cost the coffers of Canada a great deal of money. I happen to believe, as many of us do, that the time has come to sit down and negotiate fairly. That is reflected in the attitude of the young people I spoke with here this evening.
Having gone over the expenditures of Government, having spoken to people who will be the parliamentarians of the future, people who represent the dream of Canada, I know they do not believe for one minute that the topics being discussed here tonight speak to this country's future. They do not believe for one minute that contained within the expenditure program of this Government are the necessary funds, properly allocated, to guarantee that those kinds of pursuits will become a reality, that there is a clear indication by the Government that it wants to see change in those areas.
What we have seen over the last two years is a disaster. It is a shame. We have seen this Government elected on a big lie. It has now undertaken to attack the people of Canada. It is attacking everyone at every level. It started out attacking
pensioners. Had it not been for my colleague from Beaches, among others, and the efforts of the pensioners themselves all across this land, the Government would have totally eliminated indexation of old age pensions.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Wrong.


Ian Deans: Immediately. During the debate we even had a dispute between the Ministers involved, the Prime Minister on the one hand and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on the other, as to what they really intended to do. However, no amount of obfuscation on their part could in any way hide the truth from our pensioners. They knew. They could see it. They were out on Parliament Hill fighting against this Government in order to maintain what they had fought for for years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: The Government cut back on EPF funding, and what did that mean? It meant less money for universities, higher tuition fees, fewer opportunities, a reduction in Canada's productive capacity, and it means that Canada will not keep pace with technology. What does the Government do? It attacks the youth as it attacks the pensioners. Then we come to the workers of Canada. Where was the Government when Ronald Reagan decided to slap on all kinds of tariffs? Where was it when he moved to cut back on the imports of Canadian softwood lumber? Where was it when the U.S. moved to cut back on hogs and fish imports? Where was it when the U.S. brought in a Farm Bill which will undercut, in many ways destroy, markets which have long been held by Canada to be ours? Where were the Tory Members? You do not hear from them. They never speak for the people. They do not even understand the problem.


John Napier Turner: They are anonymous.


Ian Deans: Then we have the former leadership candidate for the Tory Party, Peter Pocklington. Enough said. I do not have to go into any detail about that. We all well understand where the Tories get their policy from when you look at this man who ran for the Tory leadership and then takes the kind of action he is now taking.


John Horton McDermid: Now we all understand why you are quitting.


Ian Deans: Is it not bad enough to attack the pensioners and the youth? Is it not bad enough that they fail to support the workers of Canada? No, they then go on to change the unemployment insurance system. They go out and encourage people to take early retirement. Retire early, make room for young people, take lower paying, part-time jobs. Get out of the workforce.


John Horton McDermid: Is that why you are leaving?


Ian Deans: So these people take their advice and the Tories tell them, now that they have done it, that they cannot draw unemployment insurance. I ask you, is that fair?
June 10, 1986


John Horton McDermid: Why are you leaving, Ian?


Ian Deans: Is that reasonable? Is that the way one would expect a Government to operate? This Government has launched an attack on the people of Canada, but who has it helped?


John Horton McDermid: The ordinary Canadian.


Ian Deans: You know whom they helped. The moment the banks got in trouble, remember that? When farmers were losing their farms because they could not pay their mortgages, when families were losing their homes because they could not meet their commitments, where was the Government? Day after day we said, give them some help. Oh, no. The Government said that this is a problem for the banks. When the banks were losing money, where did they get it from? Out of the pockets of the farmers who lost their farms and the families who lost their homes.
You will not be surprised, Mr. Speaker, to hear my final word is this. We will not support this Government's expenditure program.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I say with trepidation, questions and comments.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the NDP House Leader.


John Horton McDermid: Same old speech he used at Queen's Park.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He talked about retirement. Here is a man who has announced that, having sat in this House as a member of the NDP for far too long, some five years, the most important thing in his life is to retire from the NDP. I know he is an expert on that particular matter.
After listening to the rhetoric of the NDP and the Liberal Party all day today, we have in front of us now a set of outstanding Estimates brought down by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret). I think the Opposition should stand as one and applaud him for his management.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We should be saying to the President of the Treasury Board: Thank you, Bob de Cotret, for everything you are doing for Canada. That is the kind of leadership this man has given.


John Napier Turner: That is the kiss of death, Bob.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Not much enthusiasm over there.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I would simply say that as far as this Government is concerned, we have found that the accounts of this country have been managed over the last two years in a way unprecedented in comparison with what happened under
Supply
our predecessor Government. Then there was complete irresponsibility. What we have now is a breath of fresh air, and the people of Canada welcome it.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows that this is the time for questions and comments and, given the time limits, I must allow the right of reply.


John Napier Turner: Eat them raw, Ian.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I must say that for the first time in my political life I was almost struck dumb. I could hardly believe what I was hearing. How the Government House Leader could rise and ask us to applaud the President of the Treasury Board, knowing what has been done to the country under the administration of that particular Minister-


John Horton McDermid: Interest rates are down. Unemployment is down. Inflation is down.


Ian Deans: -is beyond my understanding. I have to think that the 1.2 million people who remain unemployed are not impressed. The farmers who do not receive sufficient revenue for their produce are not impressed. The young people who cannot find full-time meaningful employment are not impressed. I could go on at great length, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: It being ten o'clock p.m., it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 82(11) to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the Main Estimates and for the passage of all stages of the Bill based thereon.

Therefore, the question is as follows: Mr. de Cotret, seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn moves that the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987, laid upon the Table, Thursday, February 27, 1986, be concurred in.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.

June 10, 1986
Supply


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Robert René de Cotret: that Bill C-l 15, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1987, be read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time.
Mr. de Cotret thereupon moved that Bill C-l 15, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1987, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the chair.
Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the President of the Treasury Board if he can give us the customary assurance about the Bill being in the usual form and so on.


Robert René de Cotret: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can give the assurance that the form of this Bill is the same as that passed in previous years.


Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 2 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 3 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 4 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 5 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
June 10, 1986
Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 6 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall the schedule carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall the preamble carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall the title carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall the Bill carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Bill agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall I rise and report the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Supply


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, you can see whether the House would be willing to have the vote that was taken on the original motion apply to this particular motion.


Ian Deans: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The vote that was taken on the original motion shall apply. Is there a willingness on the part of the House to cast the vote the same way?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Schellenberg:: Mr. Speaker, after due consideration I would throw my vote in with the Government side.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Schellenberg) will show in the vote in the affirmative with the government side. Another slow bus, I take it.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Robert René de Cotret: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, may I propose that the procedure that was followed on the immediately preceding motion apply to this motion. I would request that you ask if the House would be willing to do that.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I apply the same recorded vote to this motion as previously recorded?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Althouse
Angus
Benjamin
Blackburn
(Brant)
Blaikie
Cassidy
Copps
Deans
de Corneille de Jong Epp
(Thunder Bay-Nipigon) Finestone Foster Frith Fulton Gauthier
Gray
(Windsor West) Guilbault (Saint-Jacques) Henderson Jewett Johnston
(Saint-Henri-West-mount)
Keeper
MacLellan
Malipart
Manly
Marchi
Mitchell
Nicholson
(Trinity)
Nunziata
Nystrom
Orlikow
Ouellet
Parry
P6pin
Prud'homme
Riis
Robichaud
Rompkey
Rossi
Tardif
(Richmond-Wolfe) Tobin Turner
(Vancouver Quadra) Young-43.
June 10, 1986


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.
Supply
Mr. Speaker:: It being 10.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, June 11, 1986