Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister for Science and Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):

Madam

Speaker, that is precisely why we are doing the NAFTA. It is in order to create jobs in Canada and give ourselves export opportunities in Mexico that we do not have today.

They have effective tariff rates of 20 per cent on telecommunications, for example. The other day I saw a figure that 8 per cent of Mexicans have telephones. In five years close to 40 per cent of Mexicans will own telephones. We would like to sell telephones to the Mexicans. We would like to make them in Canada as we do with all the switching apparatus.

What we are doing is removing Mexican quotas and tariffs so we can export into that country. Years ago we gave up our quotas and our tariffs against Mexico. Who would not negotiate a trade agreement with the country when its access to one country is just catching up with access that we have already given to them?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):

Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In November 1988, the unemployment rate in the Montreal region was 9.5 per cent. Today, it is over 13.5 per cent. Today, 70,000 more people in Montreal are unemployed than in November 1988. When will this government get its priorities straight and alleviate the human suffering it has caused in the Montreal region?

Hon. Pierre H. Vincent (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):

Madam Speaker, although the hon. member has frequently mentioned Montreal in this House, he never said that since May 1988, the department responsible for businesses in Quebec has funded 107 projects in Montreal, to help businesses in Montreal create and maintain jobs in that region. This is good news, but it is not something the hon. member mentions very often.

May 14, 1993

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):

Madam Speaker, the minister said there was good news. Is it good news that Montreal has more than 770,000 people on welfare? Instead of quoting statistics, why does he not show some concern for people who are living in poverty? The government's role should be to take care of people in need, not quote statistics that are meaningless when poverty is still on the rise in the Montreal region.

Hon. Pierre H. Vincent (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):

Madam Speaker, the hon. member says he does not want statistics, while he keeps quoting figures himself.

I would say that unlike the Liberals, this government does take care of people, and one of the ways it does that is by ensuring that jobs are created. Look at the money invested in the Montreal region: $150 million for the development fund, followed by $50 million and another $35 million. All this money was invested in the Montreal region to help people and businesses get ahead and look foward to a better future.

Madam Speaker, only a few years ago governments and most economists defined unemployment levels above 4 per cent as unacceptable. Yet the Minister of Finance calmly states that double digit unemployment will continue until the end of 1994.

Since job creation was not the focus of the budget, are Canadians to conclude they are to fend for themselves and that double digit unemployment is inevitable for the next two years?

Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister for Science and Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):

Madam Speaker, my hon. friend poses a very real problem for all industrialized countries. The level of unemployment is very high. It is higher than we would like in Canada. This government has never said anything opposite.

Oral Questions

What we are trying to do is to put in place a level of confidence so jobs will be created and investment will be created. I have some good news for the member on that.

We have had real a GDP increase 3.5 per cent in the fourth quarter. A trend in unemployment is heading down. As I have said employment has increased in 10 of the last 12 months. Our exports are very strong. Consumer confidence is improving. The Conference Board of Canada's index of consumer attitudes increased 5 per cent in the first quarter. Business confidence is up. Construction spending is also up.

All these are signs that we can get our unemployment rate down and start to create the kinds of jobs that all members of the House would like to see us create.

Madam Speaker, many economists and many Canadians disagree with the finance minister's obsession with inflation.

Will the minister agree with a growing number of economists and Canadians that the real economic crisis facing Canada today is high unemployment afflicting Canadians in small towns, in large towns and cities across the nation?

Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister for Science and Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):

Madam Speaker, I would say that high unemployment is a major regional problem in all industrialized countries, including Canada.

What we are doing is building this kind of confidence in the statistics that I have just noted. We are also doing things in a very pointed way regionally, lake our FED-NOR program, for example, in northern Ontario where over 4,000 jobs and over 400 businesses have been created in the last five years through that program. Our regional programs for economic diversification have also helped certain regions that are in difficulty.

I was asked a question about Cape Breton at the beginning of Question Period. Our support for Devco has been strong. Even when we are having to cut back subventions and contributions, we are maintaining our commitments to Devco.

Through our Aboriginal Economic Development Program, which all members of the House respect, we have created over 1,600 businesses on and off reserves. This is

May 14, 1993

Oral Questions

how we are trying to get at regional economic expansion as well as doing these large scale macro things which are building consumer confidence and business confidence, not at a level as high as we would like to see, but it is now positive.

Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):

Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services.

Yesterday at the Standing Committee on National Defence there was some shattering evidence on the government's decision to spend $5.8 billion on the EH-101 helicopters. First, there was a minimally acceptable alternative or option put forward by DND costing less than $1 billion that was rejected by the government. Instead it went for this Cadillac version.

Second, Boeing Canada is able to modernize the search and rescue helicopter fleet for less than $200 million, a fraction of the cost of the model being foisted on the people by the Government of Canada.

In the face of this evidence, will the minister agree the time has come to cancel this $5.8 billion helicopter deal?

Hon. Paul Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for putting that question.

I believe there were six or seven witnesses yesterday before the committee. Only one witness said that the Boeing Labrador helicopter would be anywhere near comparable to the EE1-101. As a matter of fact, outside in a scrum afterward he was asked by reporters: "Are you trying to tell us that the Labrador is as good as the EH-101?" He ignored the question. The fifth time it was asked, he said: "No, it is not".

We cannot compare a 40-year old aircraft which does not even have the airframe built anywhere in the world any more because it is so old to a brand new aircraft. We cannot say that it is equal. It just is not equal.

The fact is it would cost us $600 million to refurbish those in a way that we need to refurbish them in this country as was expressed yesterday. He is talking in American dollars of a refurbishment that they did a few years ago for the Americans who are using those helicopters for a second-line helicopter. They do not put on de-icing equipment.

I am sorry, we live in Canada. We cannot take those helicopters off the ground 38 per cent of the time now because we do not have de-icing equipment on them and because of the winds. They cannot be fitted with certifiable de-icing equipment. We need a better helicopter to do search and rescue in this country. It will cost about the same amount.

Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):

Madam Speaker, first, every single dollar used for the remodelling and modernization under the Boeing proposal would be spent in Canada; not in Italy, Britain or elsewhere, but in Canada.

Second, the minister persists as does the Minister of National Defence in raising the false point about comparability. The issue is not comparability. If the government simply understood that the issue is which helicopter can satisfy the requirements for search and rescue, it would see we do not need the Cadillac version. We need a helicopter than can serve at the least cost to the Canadian people.

Surely the government must recognize that the proposal to upgrade the Labradors is the most cost efficient alternative in front of the government.

Hon. Paul Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member is comparing apples with oranges. He knows and has been informed that it would cost about $339 million to do an up-fit on the present Labradors in Canadian dollars using a Canadian package in order to get them to a standard which we feel we would be a very minimal standard.

They still would not have the power to take off in winds over 30 knots instead of 60 knots. The hon. member is wrong. He will not listen. Yesterday there were seven or eight witnesses. Every single one of them, except the one executive who is employed by Boeing and does not fly helicopters, said that he was wrong.

I want to tell the hon. member that Canadians deserve better than having 1957 helicopters in the year 2000. We want a year 2000 helicopter to help do a better job on search and rescue in this country. Our people deserve it.

May 14, 1993

Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):

Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue or whoever is answering for him today.

The departmental regulations issued recently exempted from the tax on diesel fuel all fishermen in the Atlantic except those who fish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. In other words, those who fish off the east coast of Newfoundland are exempt from the tax on diesel fuel. Those who fish in the gulf, and there are five provinces that fish in the gulf, are not.

There is a clear discrimination on the part of the Department of National Revenue. I simply want to ask the minister if he will revise the regulations. Will he build some fairness into the system to treat those who fish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence equally with those who fish off the Atlantic coast?

Hon. Paul Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):

Madam Speaker, I did not have notice of this question. It deserves a very good answer. There should be fairness in the system. We will look into it and get back to the hon. member as soon as possible.

Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the minister for that answer, but I want to remind him this is a time of diminishing resources on the Atlantic coast. It is a time of increasing costs. All fishermen surely must be treated fairly whether they fish in the Atlantic or they fish in the gulf. There are five provinces that fish in the gulf.

I ask the minister to consider this seriously and quickly and change the regulations to make it fair for those who fish in the gulf.