Debates of May 8th, 1995

V-E Day

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Job Creation

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, Statistics Canada reported a decline in the unemployment rates for Canada and Quebec. There is, however, a sad truth behind its report, since the decline can be explained, not by an increase in the number of jobs, but by the departure of 38,000 people from the labour market. If the level of unemployment is dropping, it is because the unemployed are giving up trying to break into the job market and are abandoning all new efforts.

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. With the lack of job creation measures and with cuts of more than $6 billion to unemployment insurance, does the minister realize that the sole effect of his government's action in the past 18 months is to hide the actual number of unemployed, rather than reduce unemployment?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that over the past year Canada has seen the highest level of job growth of any of the 22 countries of the OECD. There have been 461,000 jobs created in this country. It is the best job growth number.

That is not enough and we want to continue. Much of that has been as a result of the government providing the major stimulus. We can see over 100,000 of those jobs attributed directly to the infrastructure program, which was a major election commitment we made. We have provided stimulus right across Canada. Thirty thousand Canadians alone have been affected by new employment and new opportunities through our strategic initiatives and a number of other areas.

We certainly are not saying it is sufficient, but it is on the right track. All that is lacking is the full dedication of all members of this House to the crucial issue of job creation rather than spending their time on other issues which are not as relevant to the people of Canada.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the minister talks enthusiastically of job creation, but he is forgetting to mention that no jobs have been created in Canada in the past five months.

Instead of focussing on creative measures, talking about regional development and committing to defence industry conversion, will the minister acknowledge that all he is doing at the moment is considering a project that would reduce the number of Canada employment centres from 100 to 30, as proposed in a document produced recently by his department?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman would want to apologize for the absurd statement he just made that not one job has been created in the past five months. Several thousand jobs have been created in the hon. gentleman's own riding.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the government always quotes statistics for a full year. I would ask him to check his figures for the past five months.

Since the federal government has shown it is incapable of fighting unemployment creatively, and since the problem has taken on such proportions, particularly in Quebec, where we have over 800,000 people on welfare now, how does the Minister of Human Resources Development explain the federal government's stubborn refusal to give the Government of Quebec jurisdiction in matters of manpower training, when it alone can establish the appropriate and integrated measures that will really create jobs?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, the claim made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition is interesting. Only a few weeks ago the minister for manpower in the province of Quebec admitted that the SQDM itself was not up to doing the job and is now subject to a major review.

The hon. member is suggesting that we transfer the large network of investments we have provided in this country over the past 50 years to help Canadians get back to work to an organization which itself is subject to review by its own provincial government. I do not think that is a good investment. I do not think the people of Quebec would like to see us provide that major rupture in the opportunity to provide for the chance of Quebecers and Canadians to get jobs.

What would be far more appropriate is if the hon. Leader of the Opposition and his counterparts made a real dedication today to start working with us in a co-operative partnership. We could combine all our efforts and all our resources for all Canadians.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Last Friday, the governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Gordon Thiessen, confirmed to the finance committee that the bank's current monetary policy is similar in every respect to the one pursued by his predecessor. In fact, the governor referred to the continuity of the bank's policy.

Does the Minister of Finance confirm the governor's comments that the Bank of Canada's current monetary policy is similar to the one which was in effect under the previous government?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, I already said a number of times in this House that we disagreed with the Bank of Canada's policy during the last recession, when interest rates were going up. But, we certainly agree today with the bank's policy, given the current objective of having and maintaining a low inflation level, and given the high price paid to achieve that goal.

It is in the interest of the Bloc Quebecois and everyone else to keep inflation low, because this is a major asset for job creation.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that, if we are not careful, we could, as mentioned in the most recent report of the Bank of Canada's governor, recreate the situation which prevailed in 1990, when Canada was the first country to go into a recession, before the United States, before Europe, before the rest of the world, because of a policy of excessively high interest rates? The governor of the Bank of Canada confirmed that last week. We are doing exactly the same thing again.

How does the Minister of Finance explain that the Bank of Canada's policy remained the same under his government, particularly in light of the fact that there are 800,000 fewer jobs than in 1990, and also considering that, before he took over the finance portfolio, he felt that this policy had a devastating effect on economic growth and job creation? There are 800,000 jobs gone.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must first tell us if he wants to keep inflation down, if he accepts the one to three per cent bracket. If he does not accept it, then let us have a debate on the issue. If he does accept it, I am sure he will agree that we must anticipate inflation.

In any case, I find the hon. member's question somewhat puzzling, given that, in the last month, interest rates have gone down at least four times. There is a very distinct downward trend. I do not understand the timing of the hon. member's question.

The member, following on the Leader of the Opposition, talks about job creation. The Minister of Human Resources Development pointed out very clearly that the numbers upon which the Bloc Quebecois is relying are simply not correct and that in fact there is job creation. Simply to fill in the answer given by my colleague, in the last quarter alone there have been 100,000 new jobs created in the private sector. The other side ought to know that.

Telecommunications

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, at one point in time the policy of the government

respecting direct to home satellite communications was to restrict access to a Canadian owned and operated company. Two weeks ago the federal cabinet overturned that CRTC decision.

The Minister of Industry said the cabinet did so because it favoured more competition and that any links to Power Corp., a direct beneficiary of the decision, were merely coincidental. However, the government also abandoned its own time line for implementing that decision and adopted Power Corp.'s recommendations in that regard as outlined in a memo to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

How does the Deputy Prime Minister explain the fact that Power Corp., a Liberal connected firm, so completely influenced the content and the timing of a cabinet decision in which it had a direct interest?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, as has been previously debated very fully in the House, a cabinet decision was made by the Government of Canada to protect competition and to protect Canadian consumers. I am sorry the leader of the third party is not interested in the view of the Canadian consumers who have overwhelmingly supported the decision that we have taken to review the licensing procedures which were set out rather discriminatorily by the CRTC.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the issue is not competition. The issue is insider influence and potential conflict of interest.

Power Corp. told the government to abandon its original time line and cabinet threw out the original time line. Power Corp. told the government not to alter the DTH policy panel's report and the government did not change the panel report. Power Corp. instructed the government to seek CRTC support for the changes and the government dutifully trotted off to see if it could get CRTC's support. It looks like cabinet did everything Power Corp. asked for and then some.

Why was Power Corp., a major player in the direct to home satellite business, allowed to set government time lines and policy in these matters?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party says that this issue is not about competition or consumer choice. It is exactly about consumer choice and competition.

That is why the Consumers' Association of Canada in a letter to the government on April 19 pointed out very specifically it was very concerned that preference may be given to one Canadian direct to home company over another. It said that what was even more disconcerting was that there may be an attempt to mothball this technology until a time when cable companies and telephone codes have overcome any technological edge. CAC believes the recommendations of the policy review panel argument address the issue of cultural protection in a fair and practical manner. The letter states: "I realize my language is strong, however it reflects the general frustration felt by many consumers".

This government decision was about protecting Canadian consumers and offering choice in television viewing, something the hon. member should understand is an important part of Canadian cultural policy.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister reads briefing notes to answer a question I did not ask.

What we object to is not competition in the industry. What we object to is the process of policy making and its susceptibility to influence by the Liberal family compact. The Canadian owned Expressvu has well established ties with the CRTC. Power DirecTv is part of the Liberal family compact as well. It is time to clear the air.

What changes is the government proposing to the broadcast licensing process to ensure that policy making is open, transparent and free from undue insider influence?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the leader of the third party who seems more interested in protecting a particular interest, we have an interest in ensuring full competition, transparency and protecting the Canadian consumers. That is why we have brought the issue to the most open and democratic forum in the country, the Parliament of Canada. That is where the issue will be decided.

If the member has a charge to make, he should make the charge. If the member believes in fair and open competition and consumer choice in the emerging satellite television industry, then why does he not join us in debating, discussing and reforming these issues on the floor of the House, which is exactly what we have proposed?

Low Level Flights

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.

Last Monday, the Minister of National Defence announced that the government had approved the Canadian Forces plan to almost triple the number of low level flights over Labrador and northern Quebec.

Yet, the environmental assessment panel reviewing the issue had recognized the obvious need for monitoring studies and other efforts to identify any negative effect to the extent possible.

Will the Minister of the Environment admit that the decision made by her colleague, the Minister of National Defence, is environmentally risky and flies in the face of prevention and sustainable development?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the federal government's decision to increase the number of low level flights follows a recommendation by the Quebec Premier's spokesman on native issues, Mr. Cliche, who said in the April 6, 1995 edition of

Le Devoir , and I quote: ``It remains to be demonstrated whether or not the impact is acceptable to the population. That is why a research institute must be created''. That was the recommendation of the Quebec Premier's spokesman, and we followed it.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the minister did not follow this matter very closely. In fact, many representations were made by aboriginal people complaining about the effect of low level flights on the environment and their quality of life.

Does the Minister of the Environment undertake to include in future agreements with Canada's allies a clause providing for the cancellation of contracts as soon as the environment and the local populations start feeling the negative impact of these flights?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the first question, I tried to emphasize that representations for the creation of a research institute were made by the Quebec Premier's spokesman, among others. We therefore decided to establish the institute in question.

As far as I know, Mr. Cliche is the Quebec Premier's spokesman on native issues. We are now working with the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Indian Affairs to ensure that the institute to be put in place by September will be responsible for reviewing other issues besides the environment.

We know that the studies conducted over eight years did not show an environmental impact. Obviously, the decision on where the flights will take place will be made by this new institute we are creating in collaboration with the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Indian Affairs.

Atlantic Groundfish Strategy

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to become a recipient under the Atlantic groundfish strategy program one must prove "an historical attachment to the groundfishery" but not need.

It was reported this flaw allowed Prince Edward Island's snow crab fishermen to make $200,000 last summer, then only five weeks later collect $340 per week under the TAGS program. Why? Because they once had an historical attachment to the groundfish industry.

Will the Minister of Human Resources Development amend his disastrous social program experiment so that need is the primary eligibility criteria?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real disservice to criticize a program which is providing important benefits for close to 30,000 Canadians as a disastrous experiment.

We are giving an opportunity to people whose industry has collapsed to find not only a way of maintaining income benefits for their families, but also to begin to find some way to make adjustments to new jobs and new employment opportunities, a program that has been in effect for nine months.

It constantly amazes me that the Reform Party is so anxious to overturn and discredit initiatives designed to help Canadians deal with their immediate problems. It shows that whatever notion there is about Reform, it has nothing to do with investing in people.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to stand up before Canadian taxpayers and say that giving people who make $200,000 a year more money is an important benefit to the country.

TAGS is now at least $385 million in the hole. Funds are being diverted from training, the most promising component of the program, to cover the shortfall. As illogical as it seems, the minister continues to defend giving those who make over $200,000 per year financial support.

Given the serious financial constraints of TAGS, will the minister now focus the few dollars we have left on those people who really need the money and not on those making over $200,000 a year?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons there are cost

overruns in the program is that since the program was announced over nine months ago, my colleague, the minister of fisheries, for reasons that are totally beyond the control of anyone certainly in this Chamber, has had to close down 14 additional sectors of the fishing industry.

That kind of calamity, which is the result of a ecological disaster being visited on us, is the reason why the program is facing the kind of pressures it is.

As I said in the House last week, we have established an independent evaluation through Price Waterhouse which has given us a series of clear recommendations on how to correct those programs. The recommendations are now being implemented, including those which apply to income testing.

At the same time we have to continue to apply the test of fairness to those who have had attachment to the fishery so we can begin to provide an alternative for them to be removed from the fishery.

Clearly fairness is not a word in the Reform Party's vocabulary.