Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Employment mentioned the fact that the Conservative government had cancelled some job-creation programs. He forgot to mention that we had intentions of replacing those programs which were cancelled with what we felt were better programs.

My question is directed to the Minister of Employment. He informed me the other night that he was busy reading the research work I did for his department on employment in the early half of the seventies. There is a document entitled "Reflections on the federal government's role in employment creation." The dilemma posed in that document is whether or not jobs created with tax dollars should go to those who are best qualified but who perhaps do not need them, or whether the jobs he is intending to create should go to those who experience the greatest difficulty in securing employment or have the greatest need for employment. Will the jobs he is bringing down go to those who do not need them, or will they go to those who do?

Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):

I should like to begin by complimenting the hon. member on the evaluations he did for the Department of Employment and Immigration: I think they were of a high calibre, and we appreciate his ability to make assessments. I hope he will find that our job-creation program reflects some of his own thinking and that those evaluations have been of real value.

I must tell him, though, that in this party we do not intend to select one group as against another. Our job-creation program is a mixed program designed to help different problems in the workplace; not simply to zero in on one group, but to provide a mixture of programs to assist those who have special needs in the workplace and also to assist those areas and regions of the country where there are generalized unemployment difficulties.

Mr. Hawkes:

We have heard a great deal from many ministers on the other side about financial difficulties resulting in limited funds and a consequent need to use dollars in the most effective manner possible. There are three ways to create jobs.

Madam Speaker:

Order please. Would the hon. member please ask his question.

Mr. Hawkes:

I would like the minister to indicate to the House of Commons which of the three major methods of job-creation he intends to employ, and what the approximate costs are for creating jobs by fiscal measures, direct subsidization or direct employment creation. Which costs the most in relation to the number of jobs produced, and which of these three mechanisms does the minister intend to employ in the coming months?

Mr. Axworthy:

Madam Speaker, I would very much like to satisfy the curiosity of the hon. member, but as 1 indicated to the Leader of the Opposition, I intend to be able to make a statement in Parliament in two or three week's time when details of that program are completed and the consultations are finished.

May 15, 1980

The hon. member would want to recognize that a comprehensive program of that complexity requires a proper statement by a minister, and not an answer in question period. 1 give the hon. member every guarantee, if he is concerned about the use of dollars, that we will be making the best use of dollars we possibly can within the budget which was set by the previous government.

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister knows that the government has received a confidential report, a copy of which I have here, from its officials which makes it clear that neither the government nor Dome Petroleum has adequate plans or technology to prevent and cope with an oil spill resulting from exploration in the Beaufort Sea.

In this light I would like to ask the Prime Minister why the government has just approved this year's drilling activities in the Beaufort Sea. Why is the government, after receiving such a report, prepared to gamble in such a dangerous way with the environmental implications of going ahead with drilling at this time?

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):

Madam Speaker, if the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party would send me a copy of that memorandum in confidence, I would read it with interest. There may be partial information given in some memo expressing one point of view. I do know the matter was discussed in cabinet and that we had assurances from the Minister of the Environment. Not only in this recent time but in previous years, contrary to what that memo says, we had the assurance that technology does exist to take action against any potential spills.

Mr. Fulton:

There is not even a bag of sponges in the Beaufort Sea.

Mr. Trudeau:

I see that one of your backbenchers is trying to help you, Ed.

Mr. Hnatyshyn:

He needs a lot.

Mr. Trudeau:

We had the assurance that technology does exist, provided it is exercised at the time of the year when the Beaufort Sea is free from ice. That is the basis of our decision to restrict drilling to certain periods of the year which are ice-free.

Mr. Broadbent:

Madam Speaker, I say quite seriously that I would be delighted to send a copy of the report to the Prime Minister because it points out that, quite contrary to regulations, Dome Petroleum had no fewer than 22 fuel spills last year, during the drilling season, which it refused to report or did not report as it was supposed to. The report also says, and I quote: "The government has still not produced its own oil spill

Oral Questions

contingency plan." That is from an important subcommittee of the government.

The report was made recently, and 1 understood that it had in fact been discussed by the cabinet. Is this the case, or is the Prime Minister saying it is not the case? Is the Prime Minister telling us that he does have a contingency plan which did not fail to comply with the regulations last year, and that he has every confidence that we should be proceeding now with drilling in the light of last year's experience with Dome and in the light of what this report tells us?

Mr. Trudeau:

Madam Speaker, I think I will ask the minister responsible, the Minister of the Environment, to deal with the substance of the question. But in so far as my position is concerned in trying to answer this question, I can only point out to the hon. member that if the anonymous civil servant who sent him confidential documents in unmarked envelopes would do me the same courtesy, I might be in a position to answer his questions.

Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):

Madam Speaker, on seeing newspaper stories about this report, I made some inquiries. Although those inquiries have not been entirely completed, my understanding is that this, rather than being the report of the subcommittee, is the view of one member of that committee. I want to check that further.

Clearly, in considering the drilling proposals brought forward, there was consultation with my officials. In this kind of activity inevitably there is a risk, but it was our belief that the risk involved was supportable within the limits of necessary environmental protection. We are concerned in a continuing way that more research be done into these kinds of problems and we have indicated, or are in the process of indicating, our strong concern to the private sector, to the companies involved, our belief that more research into this kind of potential problem should be undertaken.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Broadbent:

Madam Speaker, I will go back either to the Prime Minister or to the minister directly responsible. The question should be dealt with by the Prime Minister because my understanding is that the decision to proceed with drilling now was reached in cabinet.

Since the report, to pick up the phrase used by the minister, says that last year "unacceptable risks" were taken, and it seems that the same procedures will be used this year, I should like to obtain, either from the Prime Minister or from the minister responsible, unequivocal assurances that in the government's view the negative opinion expressed in this report is not shared by the government, namely, that they will proceed under circumstances that are very safe to the environment in the north.

Mr. Roberts:

Madam Speaker, I can only repeat what I said earlier, that my understanding-but I must check it further-

May 15, 1980

Oral Questions

is that this is not the report, but the view of one member of the committee. I have no reason to believe that unacceptable risks have been taken in the past.