Given the reaffirmation of the Quebec consensus yesterday at the socio-economic conference in Quebec City, which had been reached by management, unions and government and which requests the federal government to withdraw from active measures, will the Prime Minister agree to reverse his decision and permit the elimination of overlap in the area of manpower?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted because progress was made. We are no longer talking about manpower training. Everybody acknowledges it, and, now I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for finally acknowledging that we offered to withdraw from manpower training.
As for the other measures arising from federal government programs, the bill currently under review provides for discussions and negotiations with the provinces so that our respective programs may be discussed and harmonized in order to eliminate duplication.
The bill being considered provides for it, and, when the governments are ready to discuss it, we will be ready too. Only, I say that the money collected under the programs previously known as unemployment insurance and soon to be called employment insurance, with the money then that we collect from federal taxpayers, we must be able to respond to questions and to assume responsibility for it before all members of this House.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is a fine demonstration of the following principle: it is not easy to negotiate with he who hears only what he wants to hear. It really is not easy. The Prime Minister knows very well that the Quebec consensus demands the federal government's complete withdrawal from the areas of job training, manpower and active measures. The Prime Minister should remember.
When federalists such as Ghislain Dufour, Laurent Beaudoin and André Bérard say it cannot go on-and are even prepared to accompany Louise Harel to Ottawa to make the Prime Minister listen to reason-is it not clear to the Prime Minister that Quebec opposes his position in the field of manpower training and that even his federalist allies are bothered by it? Does he understand that?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have just told the hon. Leader of the Opposition that we are prepared to withdraw from manpower training.
(1420)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we realize that the Prime Minister's referendum promises are worth very little. First, a veto that is no veto, recognition of Quebec as a distinct society that is not recognition and a promise to withdraw from the field of manpower that is no promise.
Does the Prime Minister realize that, if he continues in the field of manpower as he has been going, it will be his third strike? In baseball, it is three strikes and you are out.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I recall rightly, the leader of the yes side in the last referendum, Mr. Parizeau, said they had won the first period in 1993, the second in 1994 and that they were going to win the third in 1995. Well-
Mr. Gauthier: We are in overtime.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Mr. Speaker, I have never seen anyone lose and then say he was going into overtime after the third period. You lost the referendum. The game is over. That is it.
Are they going into overtime until they win?
Listen, Mr. Speaker, I have just told this House clearly that the promises we made in the throne speech and before stand. We will withdraw from the field of manpower. I have repeated it, and we will withdraw. If they want us to withdraw right now, we are ready to do so.
As for active measures, thse are not manpower training, but something else. I said that the bill provides for negotiations on them. They want us to sign a blank cheque. For heaven's sake. This is taxpayers' money. It is money from workers in Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Ontario that is redistributed to Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Quebec. We have a responsibility to be fair to everyone.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday Ghislain Dufour was speaking of active measures. In light of the economic summit which ended in Quebec City yesterday, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the Prime Minister of Canada is completely out of touch with Quebec reality.
Why does the Prime Minister engage in federal-provincial squabbles? Why is he adding fuel to the fire? Why is he involved in a flagwaving battle at the expense of the 800,000 plus men and women who are waiting for a real manpower policy to come along so that they can find a job?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too can quote business leaders, if that is what you want. They stated clearly that the greatest handicap to economic growth in Quebec at the present time is the idea of separatism the members across the way are upholding.
If they really wanted to create jobs for unemployed Quebecers, they would put the whole idea of independence on ice, so we could work together on creating jobs for Quebecers, for the people of Montreal in particular.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, those same business leaders, in many instances federalists, nonetheless have agreed to work with the sovereignists in Quebec. They have managed to reach a consensus, a concept this Prime Minister of Canada has not managed to reach, to feel comfortable with, to understand in the slightest.
Not long ago, the Prime Minister was accusing us of talking about the Constitution, when what had to be talked about was jobs, according to him. Now, when everybody is talking about employment, he is the one bringing up the Constitution. Cute trick, would you not say?
(1425)
When will he, or his minister, meet with the government of Quebec and negotiate on the basis of consensus, a consensus reached by federalists and others, that same consensus referred to yesterday by everybody, from Gérald Larose to Laurent Beaudoin, from Daniel Johnson to Lucien Bouchard?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): I have set out the government's position clearly. The Minister is prepared to meet with the minister at any time. He has said so.
On the matter of manpower training, which is the term still used here in this House and everywhere else, what we are saying is that we are pulling out of it.
But, as concerns unemployment insurance programs, and the monies we collect from all employees and employers across Canada, it is our constitutional responsibility to administer them. I am not talking Constitution, but merely saying that I want people to respect the Constitution we have at this time, which states that unemployment insurance is a federal responsibility.
able support from Quebec business executives, union leaders, federalists and separatists.
Once again, the federal government is in danger of letting the separatists get out in front, this time on the issue of who can manage government finances more responsibly. When will the Prime Minister establish a firm date for the elimination of the federal deficit, or is he prepared to play second fiddle to Lucien Bouchard on that issue?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have a program which is very well known. We said that this year we will be at 3 per cent of the GDP and we will meet that target. The Minister of Finance set another target of 2 per cent for next year and again we will meet that target.
People are so impressed by the way we are managing the situation that today Canada's interest rates are lower than those in the United States. With the way it is being managed, interest rates have gone down by more than 3 points in one year.
I am delighted with the decision yesterday in Quebec about setting the goal of reducing its deficit. Ours is going down. We will be at 2 per cent. The most important thing is to have a realistic target and meet it.
The Gingrich friends of those in the third party have passed about six bills in the United States about a target and they never met it. Here, we have a short term target that is met. The business community is applauding.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I assume that either the Prime Minister did not hear my question or he did not understand it.
We are talking about manoeuvring for the next referendum in Quebec. The premier of Quebec has committed his government to deficit elimination. He will then blame any failure to meet that target on deficit unloading by the federal government, of which there was a great deal in the recent budget. There is a trap here. I challenge the Prime Minister to avoid it.
Will the Prime Minister guarantee that the federal government will be in better shape than the separatist Government of Quebec on deficit elimination, debt reduction and tax relief prior to the next referendum?
(1430 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are way ahead today. We are also way ahead of the Ontario government. We have managed to do that in a civilized way, in the Liberal way. It will not be by slashing and burning or by not caring whether people are suffering in our society like the Reform Party would do.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is sleep walking again on this issue in preparation for the next contest with the separatists in Quebec. In order to win that contest the federal government must appear fiscally stronger and more fiscally responsible than the separatist Government of Quebec. It has to be ahead on debt elimination, it has to be ahead on debt reduction and it has to be ahead on tax relief. Unbelievably, the government seems to be willing to trail the separatists on these three counts.
Does the Prime Minister not realize that by dragging his feet on those three subjects or talking a lot about those three subjects but not addressing them, he is weakening the federalist position even before the next contest with the Quebec separatists begins?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party is getting up for his fourth strike.
We are ahead. We started two and a half years ago and we are ahead of our program. Interest rates will recede again. At this moment they are below the interest rates of the United States. Interest rates in Canada have dropped three points in the last 12 months. We managed to do that while making sure that the people who are the weakest in Canadian society were not the ones who paid the price.
On Wednesday, the Prime Minister refused to hand over active measures by hiding behind remarks allegedly made by Ghislain Dufour to the effect that the consensus was about manpower training. Yesterday at the Quebec summit, it was Mr. Dufour who introduced a motion to have all manpower training active measures transferred back to Quebec. He even volunteered to accompany Mrs. Harel.
I ask again: In view of this clearly expressed consensus and the October 30 results, will the Prime Minister show good faith and take a realistic attitude by agreeing to transfer to Quebec all active measures and relevant budgets?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important to emphasize again the good faith demonstrated by all those involved in this issue.
On March 18, I sent a letter to the minister responsible for this issue in Quebec, in which I said, in essence, the following: ``I do recognize the fact that there is a consensus in Quebec and that the province is very serious about taking charge of the active measures relating to Quebec's labour market, as indicated in the motion passed by the National Assembly of Quebec on December 4, 1995. Moreover, I fully agree with some of the principles set forth in the document received from you. These principles-the need for integrated active labour market measures, partnerships, decentral-
ized decision making, result-oriented action-are perfectly in keeping with those outlined by the Government of Canada in Part II of the bill. It would seem to me that they are also closely akin to the positions taken by many of our colleagues from the other provinces, as described in the document issued by the ministerial council on social policy reform''.
My hon. colleague should be reminded of the fact that we had already put this proposal forward before this gathering took place in Montreal and Quebec City this week.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister-since he has been the one answering in the past three days-realize that having two overlapping systems is expensive: $250 million, according to the previous Liberal government? What is he waiting for then to let employee and employer contributions be put to use to create jobs rather than to enhance the visibility of the federal government?
(1435)
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think that some kind of a consensus has been reached, even between us and members representing the opposition in this House. In fact, if you listened to what I was proposing to the Quebec minister responsible, all we are waiting for now is for a Quebec delegation to come and tell us what they have to propose on the basis of the Quebec consensus and what is already provided for in Part II of Bill C-12-
Mrs. Lalonde: It is not the same thing.
Mr. Young: No, it is not the same thing.
What is happening is that the Bloc Quebecois never says the same thing from one day to the next. Their rambling is very difficult to follow.
Will the Prime Minister withdraw his incorrect statements, admit there has been a serious manipulation of a byelection and ask the ethics counsellor to investigate this unfortunate misuse of power?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly evident that the definition of the new politics of the Reform Party is to reduce everything to the most base partisan level absolutely possible.
It is absolutely deplorable that the hon. member is taking a visit from the newly elected President of Haiti, who is visiting his major partners, the Dominican Republic, the United States and Canada, countries which are directly involved in the development and reconstruction of his country and responsible for the United Nations force to talk about its implementation, and turning it into a partisan attack. It is absolutely deplorable.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the critical question is: When was the invitation issued?
The Haitians have told the Reform Party the truth. Liberal golden boy Pierre Pettigrew has used his government influence to bring in the Haitian president to help him win the byelection campaign.
Does the Prime Minister categorically deny that his government arranged for the Haitian president's Montreal visit just last week when it was discovered that the byelection was too close to call? If he will not deny this, will he admit that the government's actions have blatantly interfered with the byelection process and that was totally wrong?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is really wrong is the attitude, facts and presentation of the hon. member. The only thing wrong with the visit is the kind of position that party has taken.
Let me cite the facts. The decision of the Haitian president to come to Canada was based solely upon the need to work with the American government and our own government. He made that decision at a time that was most convenient after his inauguration. During his visit he is meeting with senior business leaders here in Ottawa and in Quebec. He is meeting with the leader of the Government of Quebec. He is also meeting with the Leader of the Opposition. There is nothing partisan about that. He just wants to meet with people who are interested in the welfare of Haiti. That is one reason he is not meeting with the Reform Party.
Can the Prime Minister tell us why his government has decided that the tax system should be reviewed behind closed doors by a small group of experts, a group of insiders who have become rich by using tax shelters, who in fact would not benefit in any way from any changes?
(1440)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, any tax reform would lead to the introduction of a bill in the House of Commons, which then decides if the bill is good or bad. Whether or not there is a roving commission, what counts is the bill that comes before Parliament.
So far, the Minister of Finance has shown that he can bring down very balanced budgets, from which he himself has eliminated a considerable number of tax loopholes, including family trusts, an issue that was raised by the hon. member. I think that the method used by Canada's Minister of Finance is quite effective.
As I was saying earlier, Canadian interest rates have dropped by three points in the last year. Our interest rates are now lower than those in the U.S. Everyone has their own way of doing things, but I am quite satisfied with the method that has been used so far by Canada's Minister of Finance.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is telling us that there is no problem, that the foxes are guarding the henhouse and even contributing to Liberal Party coffers. Well, the foxes are going to reach biased conclusions, because these committee experts advise large corporations on how to avoid paying their fair share to Revenue Canada. The Prime Minister is telling us: ``There is no problem; we are in good hands''. The world has turned topsy-turvy.
If the Prime Minister wants his government to be credible when it says it wants to restore fair and equitable taxation in Canada, he should immediately undertake to open up and democratize his committee by getting all Canadians involved, because taxation concerns everyone, and not only those who benefit.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it totally deplorable that the official opposition's finance critic does not have enough confidence in himself and his team to defend his views.
I know full well that Liberal members on the committee will take whatever action is necessary to protect the interests of the most vulnerable in our society, as the Liberal Party has done throughout its history.
[English]
However, last night when a motion was put to the House to kill, scrap, abolish the GST, what happened? The Liberals defeated their own election promise.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why has the Liberal government broken that election promise?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know why. How many flip-flops has the leader of the Reform Party made on that over the last few years?
If the hon. member were to read the red book on page 22 he would have his answer.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Liberal candidates in the last federal election did not knock on doors and say: ``Please send me to Parliament because I want to harmonize, I want to co-ordinate, I want to integrate federal and provincial taxes so that we can tax you more efficiently''. That is not what they said.
They repeated the promises made by the finance minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister to kill and abolish the GST. I ask the Prime Minister very simply so that he does not evade the answer to this question. Why did he mislead Canadians?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think that if he translates page 22 of the red book into French, he will know what we said.
[Translation]
It is reported that Canadian soldiers have once again engaged in hazing at the Gagetown base, in New Brunswick, and that the military police is conducting an investigation into these events, which could further tarnish the Canadian armed forces' reputation.
Since the Minister of National Defence had given formal orders banning such activities, are we to understand that the minister's authority over our Canadian forces is seriously lacking?
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister is aware of the allegations that have been made and he has been assured that the Canadian forces are investigating this matter. It is presently under investigation.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of this Parliament, we always hear the same answer: an investigation is underway.
If his government is still in charge, this time will the Prime Minister refuse to let his minister punish only enlisted men and will he demand that the real culprits, namely the high-ranking officers, be punished rather than being promoted?
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government treats these allegations very seriously. The matter is being dealt with with fairness and the laws of natural justice.
The people of Peterborough riding follow the affairs of Bell Canada with great interest, whether they are employees or customers. Bell Canada was recently allowed a rate increase.
In the light of this, will the parliamentary secretary comment on Bell Canada's forecast of a 40 per cent increase in profits at a time when it is cutting 10,000 jobs?
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the forecasts that Bell Canada has proposed are just those. They are forecasts and estimates for the coming year and may vary by the end of the year.
It is my understanding that by means of voluntary packages and attrition Bell Canada has not laid off any employees to date. We also expect that Bell Canada, with the increase in profit they are projecting, will use this money to fulfil its commitments to increase investment and to provide a low cost in basic services.
Although the Prime Minister is trying to defend both ministers, he cannot have it both ways. Either the former minister of immigration was wrong for producing this piece of Liberal propaganda or the current minister was wrong for wasting taxpayers' money shredding the documents.
I ask the Prime Minister to get off the fence, take a stand and tell Canadians which minister messed up?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, coming from the Reform Party, it should consult with its members for Calgary Centre and Calgary Southeast.
I said yesterday, and I repeat today, that the minister made a decision after she became minister and decided not to proceed with the distribution of the pamphlet. That was her privilege and her right. It was the privilege and the right of the minister to work on that.
Some people claim he made too many references to the red book but really the red book is the program of the Liberal Party. If the Reform Party does not understand that, the Government of Canada now is formed by the Liberal Party.
When we talk about the success of the Government of Canada we talk about the success of the Liberal Party. They are together.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, once again the Prime Minister has it all wrong. The Reform caucus is completely unified-
(1450)
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Meredith: -especially in the belief that this cabinet should be whipped into shape.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I hope the hon. member for Wild Rose is not beginning a trend. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley.
Ms. Meredith: Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder we have two ministers trashing each other in the press. Neither will assume the responsibility of making a mistake. That is because the Prime Minister has failed to provide them with proper guidelines of what is appropriate or what is ``inappropriate and silly''.
To prevent other ministers from wasting taxpayers' money the Prime Minister must tell the House which minister will be held accountable.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in order to achieve this great unity they must have reverted to caning. It had a great effect. It was surprising to all of us to see the hon. member for Wild Rose hugging the member from out west. What the hon. member for Wild Rose did was a bit silly.
We have very good guidelines for ministers. They run their departments and they use their best judgment.
However, his government is now about to cut by 52 p. 100 its financial support to French speaking groups in Saskatchewan, at a time when the assimilation rate reaches 67 per cent. If the prime minister does not do anything, says Marysa, he will be able to take credit for an even higher assimilation rate.
Will the prime minister commit today in this House to fulfil the promise he made to Marysa and to reconsider the indecent and insulting proposal his government made to the French speaking community in Saskatchewan?
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House that we are currently negotiating an agreement with the Association des francophones de la Saskatchewan. We should reach an agreement shortly.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in her letter dated today, Marysa Gendron Nadeau asks the prime minister to help them, not to crush them.
In this Semaine de la Francophonie, will the prime minister have the fortitude to be consistent and to do everything he can to put a stop to the assimilation of French speaking citizens in Saskatchewan and throughout Canada?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, of course, I will do everything I can to help them, I always do. But if the hon. member is so worried about the future of French speaking Canadians outside Quebec, she should realize that the best way to help them is to keep all French speaking Canadians within a united Canada and not to divide them. If they are divided, some will perish.
[English]
Canadians are hearing conflicting reports concerning what may be another hazing incident the past weekend at CFB Gagetown. The minister has had several days to look into this matter.
Would he tell Canadians what he has found to clear the air so that this is not hanging over the heads of Canadian Armed Forces personnel?
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I just answered the first part of that question. It is under investigation and to some surprise the results may not be what the hon. member is seeking.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, after the airborne hazing videos, the minister promised Canadians that this sort of behaviour would not be tolerated.
What administrative actions did the minister put in place? Can we be sure that they were followed at CFB Gagetown?
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister gave instructions to the chain of command. The chain of command followed that throughout the forces, but something you cannot do is put judgment into the head of a person.
I cannot prejudge an investigation that is presently under way.
My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Could he point out whether he is planning to be the leader of the band on employment equity? Is he planning to improve the performance of women and men so that they can move forward in the departments? Will he change his tune for the public service from a slow waltz into a quick march? How much longer will the target groups have to wait for employment equity?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be tabling in the near future a report on the status of employment equity in the public service. I will be doing that today or tomorrow.
Members will see from that report steady progress is taking place through a range of programs and initiatives that have been initiated by the Treasury Board. Some of the highlights of the report will be, for instance, that women increase their participation
in the public service to 47.4 per cent from 44 per cent in a year; that almost two-thirds of the 14,000 employees who were hired were women. At the same time, 56 per cent of the employees promoted were women.
There has been steady progress for every designated group during the last five years. During 1994-95, the representation of every designated group in the public service has increased.
Does the Minister of Agriculture admit that his action is unfair to the dairy producers of Canada, who would be entitled to expect compensation of at least $800 million, of which $400 million should go to the dairy producers of Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, the western grain transportation subsidy in western Canada was cancelled all at once in the decision taken in the budget of 1995. The subsidy terminated completely on August 1 last year.
(1500)
To assist farmers in the transition process away from what had been a subsidized regime to what in the future, and is now, is a totally unsubsidized regime, a transition program was put in place temporarily. It is being implemented quite literally as we speak.
With respect to the dairy subsidy there is not a termination of the subsidy all at once. The phasing out process began in the 1995 budget with a first reduction of 15 per cent in the current year and another 15 per cent next year. As we announced in the 1996 budget there will be a gradual phase out of 20 per cent per year over the following five years. There is a gradual phase out period.
Either the minister misled us or he works very fast because yesterday, just nine days later, it was announced that 93 civilian full time jobs, 15 seasonal jobs and 81 military jobs were being cut, followed sometime later by surgical cuts. These people would like to bid on those jobs. When will the minister advise which jobs were cut?
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the job reductions that took place at Goose Bay had a positive intention.
It had everything to do with reducing costs because we wanted to make sure that our MOUs were signed by our allies. The project at Goose Bay generates $100 million worth of income for Goose Bay and Newfoundland; over 10 years it is $1 billion.
We did not let them go because the last day to apply for the public service reduction plan is April 1, which allows them to apply for this plan.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister today to tell us when the federal provincial conference will be held and what will be on the agenda. Is the Prime Minister ready to have the issue of manpower and the transfer of responsibilities to the provinces, including Quebec, put on the agenda?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am now in the process of consulting with the provincial governments to find out what date would be the most appropriate for this conference. We are also discussing with our colleagues what should be on the agenda.
When the agenda is ready and the date set, I will be able to make an announcement in this House, but I do not think that that will be for a number of weeks.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1505 )
I had the privilege of knowing Mr. Manning when he was in the House and it is with sadness that I speak. He was quite a remarkable man and he had a very remarkable record of service to his church, to Alberta and to Canada.
He became the youngest cabinet minister in the Commonwealth at the age of 26. He served in the provincial government for 33 years, for 25 years as premier. He was radio host of Back to the Bible Hour for almost 50 years. It is no wonder that the people of Alberta came to know him and trust him.
More than any other politician, he was the architect of modern Alberta. He brought its finances under control, established the foundation of the provincial social services system, and ensured the development of the province's oil and gas industry which has been so vital to its prosperity. The results of his work are very evident today in a strong and prosperous Alberta.
In his eulogy, the member for Calgary Southwest mentioned that his father attended every first ministers conference from the day they were established by Mackenzie King until the beginning of the Trudeau administration. His commitment to Canada was never questioned.
I think it was this remarkable record of service that made Mr. Trudeau appoint him to the Senate. Mr. Manning understood better than most the way that Canada works. For 13 years he sat as an independent senator. Apparently he once said that a lot of people think senators are entirely preoccupied with protocol, alcohol and Geritol. Of course, Mr. Manning was not preoccupied with these matters. I had the honour to serve in Parliament with Senator Manning and he was always very conscientious in carrying out his duties.
Throughout his life he worked for a strong Alberta and a united Canada. He was a legendary figure in Canadian history and an outstanding model of public service.
We see very clearly that his legacy lives on in the work of his son. I know they were very close and this is a very sad loss for him.
On behalf of all members of the government, I extend our sincere condolences to the family of the late Ernest Manning.
[Translation]
I myself knew Mr. Manning as a senator. I even had the pleasure of speaking with him a few times. He was an exceptionally courteous man who enjoyed giving advice on request. He was not the type to dictate what we should do on a daily basis but, if we had an opportunity to talk to him and to ask him a few questions on his past experiences, he was always very courteous and eager to help. As I was saying earlier, Canada has lost a great patriot, a truly great Canadian.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues, I would also like to pay tribute to Mr. Manning, as I called him for many, many years.
In the annals of Canadian history, Ernest Charles Manning will be remembered as a statesman, a leader and a builder. Over the course of some 25 years as the premier of Alberta, he led Albertans from the poverty and destitution of the depression to the prosperity and affluence of today.
Inheriting a financially bankrupt treasury in 1935, he left Alberta debt free. Some 30 per cent of the budget of the Alberta government was cash in the bank when he left. That is a tremendous record and something we do not always see today.
(1510 )
At the time Mr. Manning took over in 1935, the bankers of the day were not willing to provide Alberta with money, nor was the Government of Canada. He had a very difficult time to start within that depression era. Presiding over the development of the oil and gas industry which reversed the province's fortunes, Mr. Manning made possible the economic, social and educational infrastructure which exists today in Alberta.
On the national scene he played a leading role in bringing the concerns of western Canadians to the halls of power in Ottawa. As the Prime Minister said very well, he participated in every federal-provincial conference from Mackenzie King to Pierre Trudeau and spent 13 years as a senator where he became the leading advocate for the reform of that institution. He has left his mark on our province of Alberta and our country Canada.
When I speak of Mr. Manning today, I pay tribute to the man himself, one whom I considered to be a teacher, a mentor and a very close friend. I had the honour and privilege of serving in Mr. Manning's government and cabinet for five years. The lessons I learned during that period of time remain with me today and will remain with me for the rest of my life.
There are lessons we would all do well to learn. Above all, they centre around three basic words: honesty, integrity and fairness. Mr. Manning stood for something at all times. Everything he did, every action he took was grounded in a very firm moral conviction.
Every decision he reached was in the embodiment of a fundamental principle. Mixed into that principle always was this element of fairness.
When groups would come to make presentations to us as a cabinet, he made sure that both sides were heard and that everybody was able to understand the problem. In the final analysis he was able to pick out of the conversation the key thing that had to be decided, then he would ask cabinet: ``Is this what we are deciding? Is it fair and is it right for our people?'' At that point we would make a decision and proceed. It was a very open, democratic process.
Every policy he brought forward in Alberta was sought to realize his goal of creating an environment in which each individual could have the freedom and resources to reach their full potential and make a contribution to society. A central characteristic of Mr. Manning was his strong ethical grounding, his sense of moral centre. It acted as his compass and the guiding means of his conduct in his government.
There was no room for favouritism in Mr. Manning's Alberta. There were no kickbacks, there were no grafts. It simply was not done. Even members of the business community who were very suspicious of social credit in its beginning came to respect him and to trust him. When he gave them his word, they knew it was good, and it was.
I remember many of our experiences together: the medicare discussions; the locating of the University of Lethbridge in southern Alberta; CPR's relocation in Calgary; meeting with the Metis people of northern Alberta; the paper on human resources development; the book on political realignment. I remember the one day in his office about a week before he resigned as premier when he sat back in his chair, pulled the right bottom drawer open and said to me: ``There are many new things to do yet, Ray. I have a drawerful''. His thoughts were always about the future and not on the past.
Mr. Manning, in his deeds and actions, set a standard by which all politicians are measured. A man of dignity and integrity, a devoted Christian and a loving father, he was a credit to his profession. Taken from us at the age of 87 he will be missed as a leader in our communities, missed by his family, by his son, by his province, by his country, but we are all richer, warmer and wiser for the great experience of having known him.
(1515)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we all know how difficult political life can be. When a political figure disappears, it is only fitting to reflect briefly on the career of the deceased.
A political career spanning 46 years is very long and it certainly shows how much trust the people of Alberta had put in Mr. Manning.
What is impressive is the innumerable decisions that had to be made by this politician during his career, decisions which had an impact on the life of his loved ones and which were dictated, I am sure, by an extraordinary sense of duty and great respect for democracy.
Mr. Manning certainly was committed in the purest sense of the word. For all these reasons, the members of my party join me in extending our deepest sympathy to the leader of the third party, who was sorely afflicted by the passing of his father.
Going beyond political differences, we must bow down before great men and women and this, we always do. There is no doubt that, with a career spanning 46 years, including many years as premier, Mr. Manning was one of the great ones.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would also like to share a few thoughts about Mr. Manning and some of the experiences I had with him.
I moved to Alberta from British Columbia in 1977 after Mr. Manning had gone out of power. All I knew was the incredible respect the name Ernest Manning had in the entire province of Alberta because of his history and his amazing political career.
When I first was elected to the House of Commons in a byelection on March 13, 1989, Mr. Manning's son, Preston, was with me in my campaign office. As one can imagine, we were pretty excited that night. Mr. Manning Sr. was down in Arizona and his son, Preston, phoned him. I think the conversation went something like this: ``Dad, we won, we really won''. He was so excited he said: ``Put her on, I would like to talk to her''.
I was a little nervous. My life had just been turned upside down already and then I got to speak with this famous Canadian. He said: ``Hello, Deborah, this is Ernest Manning. I want to let you know we are thrilled that you just won the byelection. I do believe this is going to make some change in Canadian politics''. That was an incredible moment for me when Ernest Manning knew my name and spoke to me on the telephone. It was a remarkable experience for me, one I will never forget.
Shortly after that I was passed the torch from one of the original Reformers, Mr. Doug Campbell, the former premier of Manitoba. I think about Doug Campbell, Stan Waters, who came to the Senate shortly after that, and Ernest Manning and the affect those people have had on my life. Of the three, Mr. Manning was the last to pass on. I have lost an incredible number of role models and heroes in Doug Campbell, Stan Waters and Mr. Manning. However, my life
is so much richer for having known them. They have had an incredible influence on my life.
In the spring of 1994, shortly after Lew and I were married, he was taking me to the Edmonton municipal airport for yet another trip to Ottawa. While we were saying our goodbyes and I was ready to get on the plane, Mr. Manning Sr. came up the escalator and around a post and we nearly crashed into each other. He was walking as upright and tall as he could walk carrying his briefcase. He was well into his eighties but was looking sharp and knew exactly where he was going.
When we realized we recognized each other he said: ``Deborah, it is so nice to see you''. He shook my hand and then looked at my brand new husband and said: ``Lewis, it is so nice to see you''. My husband said: ``You too, Mr. Manning''. We had a short visit and then he was on his way back to Calgary.
When he left I said to my husband: ``Have you guys met before?'' Lew said no. However, because we had sent a Christmas card to them, Mr. Manning, ages later, remembered my husband's name. That was an impression that will last on us forever. This was the kind of man he was.
He knew people because he cared about them. Because Mr. Manning had some sort of feeling for me and for what was going on in my life and that I was newly married, he took the time to memorize my husband's name. That was another moving experience for me which I appreciated so much.
(1520 )
In terms of his role modelling he was a man who integrated his strong personal Christian faith with his political career. I think that would stand to serve us all well, that those of us who have a strong Christian faith must never be ashamed to say yes, it is part of my political belief and I am not hesitant to share it.
I pay tribute to his wife, Muriel, today and to their son, Preston. Thank you for sharing your family with us. I know Preston has grown up in a very political and a very public home. I thank the Manning family, especially Mrs. Manning, Mr. Ernest Manning's widow. Thank you for sharing Ernest Manning with us.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would also like to pay tribute today to the late Senator Manning and on behalf of my colleagues in the NDP caucus express our sincere condolences to our colleague in the House, the member for Calgary Southwest, who was proud to call this distinguished politician, distinguished Albertan and distinguished Canadian his father.
It is interesting to note that the late Mr. Manning was born and raised in Saskatchewan near Rosetown. Had he not heard the call of Bible Bill Aberhart over the radio and enrolled in his school in Calgary at a young age, heaven knows what might have happened to his political consciousness had he stayed in that area. It was, after all, an area represented for many years by another distinguished Christian gentleman by the name Mr. J. Coldwell.
I say this by way of wanting to point out that many in the CCF and in the Social Credit had more in common than the fact they grew out of the dirty thirties. What they had in common, though they disagreed over implementation, was the insight attributed to former Alberta Premier Manning in a biography done of him that religion is something that should not just be taken down from the shelf on Sundays; that you cannot divorce spiritual values from the things of every day life and that therefore it is impossible finally not to mix religion and politics.
We in the political sphere are making spiritual judgments all the time and we would all do well to be instructed in that by honouring the life and memory of great Canadians like Ernest Manning who, like others of his day and generation, on the left and on the right, saw the reality of God as a decisive factor in their political deliberations.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add my voice, the voice of my party colleagues on the Senate side and obviously that of the member for Saint John to all other members in the House to pay tribute to Ernest Manning.
He was a Canadian who had an enduring political career that in itself speaks to the values he espoused and also speaks to the values recognized in him by the men and women, Canadians all across the country, who were called from time to time to confirm and reaffirm their confidence in this great man.
He left an indelible mark on the country. From time to time Canadians may want to search their memories and look back on some of his views as we look to the future. For example, in 1981 he had his own views on the patriation process the country was confronted with. As we examine the situation we are in today there is no doubt there was some wisdom in the words he spoke at that time with regard to changes being proposed to the country.
Obviously his influence was beyond his own generation. Evidence is that we have today here in the House of Commons his son, the leader of the Reform Party, who has had some success, I am sorry to say for Conservatives in some regard, in his own political career.
I extend to him and to his family and to Mrs. Manning our very deep gratitude for having supported him, Mr. Ernest Manning, through those years. I extend our deep appreciation for his devotion to Canada and also our condolences at this time.
It may be of some interest to Mr. Manning and to all the Mannings and those who worked with the family from time to time to know that his influence went way beyond Alberta. Though I never had the honour of meeting him, I do have very fond
memories of his voice, something passed on from generation to generation through the magic of radio.
My other was a very devout Catholic. In our home in the kitchen after dinner in the evenings I remember very well her listening to the radio show of Ernest Manning. I still remember the jingle. I can still remember that voice and the words. She was a very big fan of Mr. Manning, although I should say for his ideas with regard to Christianity and its basic values.
(1525)
Through my youth this voice was very familiar in our home in Sherbrooke, Quebec, thousands of miles away from wherever he was speaking. In that respect his influence has gone beyond the political forum into every area of our lives. We are appreciative of that.
Again, to Preston Manning and to his family we send our very deep condolences.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, on behalf of the government House leader, I wish to thank our friends opposite for their co-operation in preparing the legislative agenda for the coming weeks.
Tomorrow, we plan to begin consideration at report stage of Bill C-14 on transportation. Our intention is to continue debating this bill until it is passed, some time next week.
[English]
We will follow it with reference before second reading of Bill C-20 respecting air navigation. We will then call Bill C-7, the public works and government services departmental reorganization.
That will be followed by Bill C-9, the law commission bill. That will be followed by Bill C-19, the internal trade registration.
Depending on when Bill C-3, the nuclear workers bill, is reported from committee, we will enter it into the line-up for completion.
If time permits we will also call Bill C-15, the financial institutions bill; Bill C-11, the human resources development departmental reorganization; Bill C-18, the health departmental reorganization, in that order.
Our plan at this time is to begin business next Friday with Bill C-13, the witness protection bill, before resuming the list.