1989-11-09

[Stage Direction]
38 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canada Communication Group - Publishing, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 9,1989
[Stage Direction]
Prayers

Mr. Cooper:: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the three parties and we have agreed to have a statement at this point regarding Remembrance Day, rather than at the usual time. Any time taken to provide for the statement this morning will be added on to the time at three o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Is there agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


REMEMBRANCE DAY
Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and pleasure today as Minister of Veterans Affairs, to remind all hon. members that Saturday is Remembrance Day, and this year, 1989, is a very special day in that it marks the seventy-fifth anniversary of the beginning of the First World War and the fiftieth anniversary of the Second World War.

This year two special anniversaries emphasize just how much is owed to those who did their duty for their country in war.
First, 1989 marked the 75th anniversary of the start of the Great War, the one that was called "the war to end all wars".

One in every 10 Canadians fought in the First World War. Historians have said that Canada came of age in the mud and the blood of the trenches of Europe. Certainly,
the Commander of the Canadian Corps, Lord Byng, took that view. Recalling the Canadian capture of Vimy Ridge he said, and I quote:
There they stood on Vimy Ridge that 9th day of April 1917, men from Quebec stood shoulder to shoulder with men from Ontario, men from the maritimes with men from British Columbia, and the prairies, and there was forged a nation tempered by the fires of sacrifice and hammered on the anvil of high adventure.
These are noble sentiments, and I think of them when I listen to cynics who sometimes question the patriotic commitment of Canadians.

This Saturday at the National War Memorial and at hundreds of cenotaphs and monuments throughout Canada, we will be remembering those who cared a lot about their country and were prepared to risk their lives to keep it free.
We will also be remembering those who made the same commitment when the Second World War began 50 years ago this year. Over one million of our men and women carried freedom in their hearts, and are still hailed as "the Canadian liberators" on our pilgrimages overseas.
We will also be honouring the Canadian volunteers who served under the United Nations flag in Korea and helped to preserve independence for strangers in a then largely unknown and foreign land thousands of miles away.
Well over 100,000 Canadians died in those three wars and many, many more returned home sick in body and mind. Even today Veterans Affairs is assisting 144,000 men and women for disabilities incurred in wartime service.
Many years ago these words were inscribed in the Memorial Chamber in the House of Commons, and I quote:

November 9, 1989
Remembrance Day
They are too near to be great but our children shall understand when and how our fate was changed and by whose hand.

It is good to know that the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of those veterans do indeed appreciate those who changed the fate of a nation. A recent opinion poll found Canadians have an impressive knowledge of what our country accomplished in war and 89 per cent of those polled think it is important to remember what our wartime role was.
[.English\
They are not alone in that view. An English lady recently sent a letter to our High Commissioner in Great Britain. I want to quote from that letter. She said:
I was 15 years old when the 1939 war broke out and so I am quite well able to remember the immediate and totally generous support which Canada gave to this country 50 years ago.
Writing as one among so many, I can only send those volunteers in all the services from Canada my heartfelt thanks.
On Saturday, let us all add our heartfelt thanks to those who gained so much respect at home and abroad.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, as the official opposition critic for veterans affairs, it is my distinct honour today to rise on behalf of my colleagues to pay tribute to the more than 100,000 of our men and women who sacrificed their lives in three wars to make this country free, and to those veterans who survived, as the hon. minister said, and who are still struggling against the pain and the loneliness brought on by this conflict.
In preparing for this tribute today on the seventy-fifth anniversary, and in an effort to convey a feeling for the depth of personal sacrifice and the raw courage involved, I wish to read a short, but very poignant letter that I recently obtained from a family in Newfoundland, and I read it with their permission. It is a letter written to his mother from a young army lieutenant serving in France on the eve of a great battle on August 7, 1918. If the emotion felt is the same that one receives from reading
this kind of letter, I think it will do great justice in helping us remember this occasion today.
Dearest Mother,
This is the evening before the attack and my thoughts are with you all at home, but my backward glance is wistful only because of memories and because of the sorrow which would further darken your lives should anything befall me in tomorrow's fray. Otherwise my eye is fixed on tomorrow with hope for mankind and with visions of a new world. A blow will be struck tomorrow which will definitely mark the turn of the tide. It will be one of a grand series of victories which will humble the selfish and barbarous enemy and will exalt the hearts of those who are suffering for freedom. I have no misgivings for myself in tomorrow's encounter. It does not matter whether I survive or fall. A great triumph is certain, and I shall take part in it. I shall strike a blow for freedom, along with thousands of others who count personal safety as nothing when freedom is at stake. In a few moments I shall make the final address to my men, and shall strengthen their hearts, if they need strengthening, with the language of men at war. We shall strive only to achieve victory. We shall not hold our own lives dear. The hour is all the more dramatic for me because for the first time since I came to France, I am close to the spot consecrated by the blood of our gallant dead. It was here that noble Raymond fell and Joe and Kenneth shed their blood in freedom's cause.
I trust to be as faithful as they.
I do not think for a moment that I shall not return from the field of honour, but in case I should not, give my last blessing to father, and my latest thanks for all he did for me. Give my blessing to my brother Roland and his family and to the others who may survive me.
I have no regrets and no fear of tomorrow. I should not choose to change places with anyone in the world just now, except perhaps General Foch.
How glad I am that at last the hour has come for me to taste vengeance! I shall be my mother's and father's son tomorrow. Again God bless you all.
Your son, Hedley.
Lieutenant Hedley Goodyear, in his early twenties, was killed the following day.
As we witness from the extraordinary surges underway today freedom and peace cannot be addressed just by legislative bodies or by armies. As we have seen in this letter, these are personal matters, to which Remembrance Day is a testimonial and to the attainment of which it is a challenge.
On Saturday, November 11, we will mark our respect by wearing poppies, by attendance at church and memorial services, and parades, and by the laying of wreaths at cenotaphs. Let us remember that because these courageous Canadians conscientiously discharged their duties
These were his three brothers.
November 9, 1989

we have peace today. We survive because they were more concerned with their duties than they were concerned with their rights. Let the poppies be worn, let the parades march on, let the cenotaphs be visited, but let there be freedom and let there be peace.
The strength and unity of our country rests on its past. Let us remember this also in the days ahead.
We should remember, we must remember, we will remember.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me as a veteran and as critic for veterans affairs for my party to take part in this tribute to our veterans who served in three wars.
I want to start by quoting Greg Hogan who is Secretary of the Royal Canadian Legion, Dominion Command, when he was asked: "What are the veterans trying to teach today's students?" He said that the Legion made that clear when it pointedly ignored the fiftieth anniversary of the start of the Second World War last September. He went on to say: "Veterans don't mark the beginnings of wars. They celebrate their end".
Colonel McCrea's poem says, in part:
If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields.
We must continue to enlarge our efforts not to break faith. Ever improving benefits for veterans and their families is an important part of keeping that faith. Even more important in keeping faith is what we do to promote and work for disarmament and peace. Peace is more than just the absence of war. Maintaining peace wherever it is achieved is a never-ending struggle.
Developments in Europe and between the superpowers over the past few years have opened the doors wider than ever to huge reductions in arms, both nuclear and conventional. It is past time for Canada to take a more leading role in those efforts.
Supply
Canada can keep the faith with those who died by offering to be among the first to take part in the reduction of conventional forces in Europe. We must resist more than ever those who would have us keep up the outdated thinking of its "us" or "them", that forces must be kept as large as they are as some kind of a deterrence.
Mr. Speaker, to quote Matthew, chapter 5, verse 9, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said:
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of
God.
I submit to you, Sir, and to this House, equally blessed are the peacekeepers: for they carry on the keeping of the faith with those who served and died in those three wars.
I want to include in this tribute those many hundreds of Canadians who have served our country and the world so well with the United Nations Peacekeeping Forces.
Beginning some 25 or 30 years ago, Canada was among the first to play that peacekeeping role. We have served in the Middle East, we are still in Cyprus keeping the peace. We have just sent several hundred peacekeeping troops to Namibia, including 100 men and women from the RCMP, to assist a new nation that is having its first election and gaining its independence and freedom.
That to me, and I think to all hon. members, is the best way to keep the faith with those who died, by working harder and harder to keep the peace.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask hon. members to stand for one minute's silence.
[.Editor's note: Whereupon the House stood in silence for one minute.]



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte) moved:: November 9, 1989
Supply
That this House approve the recommendation contained in the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Tiransport, calling for a moratorium in the Government's proposed cuts to VIA Rail.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to congratulate my three colleagues in the House, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, and my colleague from Regina for their most eloquent words. In fact, they are the most eloquent words I have heard in many a year in this House from three members on the occasion of Remembrance Day.
Why am I taking the time to point that out? Why am I making such a fuss about that? I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker. It is indeed a rare day in this place when a standing committee is prepared to say of a government initiative, and it takes great courage on the part of all of its members, including Conservative members, that we have given consideration to that government initiative, in this case the cuts to VIA Rail and the elimination of 50 per cent of the routes and 2,700 jobs. We have given that government initiative our consideration. We do not come out with a report that says it is an evil design, it is a brutal measure, it is an arrogant decision. We could have, but we did not.
I am pleased to speak to the motion which stands in my name on behalf of the Liberal Party, but I suspect it stands in the name of many members of Parliament from all three political parties. It is quite traditional on an opposition day when a motion is put before the House that the motion would read along the lines that the opposition condemns, or the House condemns the government, et cetera. I want members to note the way in which this particular opposition motion is written. It states:
We comment substantially as a committee, as a nonpartisan group, on the cuts. We make some very compelling arguments to the government, as members from all three parties, that the decision that has been taken has been taken in haste, the implications of those cuts are not well understood, and the future of VIA Rail is, at best, and that is putting it very kindly, highly questionable, if these cuts proceed as they are ordered to do in just two months time on January 15.
That this House approve the recommendation contained in the second report of the Standing Committee on Transport, calling for a moratorium on the government's proposed cuts to VIA Rail.
It is a motion that is cast in the affirmative. It is a motion that does not ask for approval of the work of a particular political party. It is a motion that does not seek partisan advantage for any political party or ideology, but rather it is a motion that seeks the approval of the whole House for the work of a standing committee of this House, a committee comprised of members from all three parties, Liberals, New Democrats and Conservatives.
It is a motion that calls for the approval of the consideration and the judgment of the group of members from all three parties in this place who are charged with the responsibility to reflect upon, study and to pass comment on the transportation policy of the government. It is a non-partisan motion. It seeks no advantage for any party; it seeks to strike no blow at any party.
In the spirit of parliamentary reform, it calls upon Parliament to take note of the observations of a group of members, men and women, charged on behalf of Canadians to examine the estimates and to examine the policy of the Department of Transport.
Let us review for a moment what the government has put before the people of Canada. The Prime Minister has said that they have developed a plan which he believes will save VIA Rail. Intrinsic to that plan is to eliminate 2,700 jobs at VIA Rail; to eliminate every service other than the major corridor service in Atlantic Canada; to reduce the frequency of VIA Rail services on the major corridor routes between Windsor and Quebec city dramatically; to eliminate The Canadian train, historic not only in this country but renowned around the world; and to do all of that at a time when there is no new money to purchase new equipment or to revitalize VIA Rail.
The worst critics of this decision have said that it is a plan designed to fail. This is a built-in obsolescence policy. As you cut the feeder routes, eliminate the frequencies in the major corridor cities and eliminate routes like The Canadian, a great tourism draw for Canada around the world, surely that is a plan which in 18 months will result in yet a further decline of VIA ridership. Finally, the government will come to the House 12 to 18 months from now and say that the new statistics show ridership has gone down yet again, so let us now sever entirely the lifeblood of VIA Rail.
November 9, 1989

This committee, made up of members from all three parties, heard from spokespeople from right across Canada about the future of VIA Rail. The people who came before us represented every single possible political stripe. We heard from the mayors of all the major corridor cities, representing every political stripe. We heard from all of the railway unions. We heard from the major tourism associations of Canada. We heard from business organizations in Canada. We heard from provincial governments representing a variety of political stripes. The testimony we heard was almost unanimous in saying that VIA Rail, that ribbon of steel that built this country, is fundamental to maintaining this country.
As I stand to address this motion concerning the future of VIA Rail and to beg the government in an non-partisan way to listen to what members of Parliament have said, it is ironic that across the street today 10 Premiers and a Prime Minister are sitting down to discuss the economy of this country and to discuss as well the constitutional future of this country.
As they discuss legal terms defining the potential constitutional renewal of Canada, and as they look at macro and micro economic models for Canada's economic development, it is ironic that if we go across this country today and ask Canadians to give an example of something that contributes to nation building and holding this nation together, the vast majority of them will not revert to macro or micro economic models, nor will they present us with an alternate plan for constitutional renewal, but they will say that a rail service linking this country, as vast and as sparsely populated as it is, is fundamental to national unity.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, who is being hurt when the Government of Canada decides to eliminate VIA Rail? It is ironic indeed that we paid tribute today to the 100,000 veterans of Canada. A majority of those veterans are senior citizens. Together, with millions of other senior citizens, they depend on VIA Rail.
Today on the Hill there is to be a rally by the Canadian Federation of Students. It will be a large demonstration, demanding that the Government of Canada at least pay attention to their concerns. Millions of students in Canada depend upon VIA Rail. The poor and the
Supply
disabled depend upon VIA Rail. For all these citizens VIA Rail is not a luxury item. It does not represent a pleasant disposal of a few hours on the train; it is a fundamental, basic and affordable means of transport.
The Minister of Transport says; "But that's okay. If they can't take VIA Rail, they can fly." Well, it may be true that the Minister of Transport can fly. It may be true that I can fly and most of my colleagues can fly. It may be true that the business community can fly because it is charging it back to the office account, but senior citizens do not have office accounts and our young people do not have office accounts to use as a tax write-off. The poor and the disabled do not have office accounts. What they have had and what they depend upon is VTA Rail.
What does this report say to the government? Does it say: "Let's maintain VIA Rail in its current form forever"? Does it say: "Let's run the deficits the Prime Minister says he is concerned about forever?" No, it does not. It says clearly that VIA Rail as currently constituted with the equipment it has is not acceptable and it says clearly that the solution is not destroying a rail passenger service in Canada. It is rebuilding a rail passenger service in Canada, building a modem, efficient, high speed, environmentally friendly mass means of transport rail passenger service.
It points out that every other nation in the western and industrialized world is entering the year 2000 with a modem, high speed, efficient, environmentally clean rail passenger service, save one. Every other nation in the world as an investment in their future says that they cannot go on congesting airports, congesting highways and polluting our environment. Every other nation in the world, it seems, understands the Haida saying: "We don't inherit the land from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children." Every other nation in the world wants to give back the land to their children in good shape, environmentally clean, with affordable means of transportation.
Canada alone among the nations of the world says: "No, we are going to go backward. We cannot do it. We do not have the resolve. We do not have the finances. We do not have the technology, nor do we have the vision". The standing committee rejects that concept by the Government of Canada. We believe we do have the vision. We do have the know-how. We do have the resolve, and Canadians are prepared to make a proper

November 9, 1989
Supply
investment in their future by building a modem, efficient rail passenger service.
What do we recommend in this report? We recommend that the government impose a moratorium on those cuts that are to be implemented on January 15. We say it ought not to go ahead. We say, as well, that the royal commission on transportation announced by the Prime Minister on the same day that the government announced the VIA Rail cuts ought to be given a mandate to examine the future of VIA Rail. The royal commission should tell this Parliament and through Parliament all Canadians what role, if any, VIA Rail or rail passenger service has in the future of this country.
What could be more reasonable than that? We did not establish the royal commission on transportation; the Prime Minister did. He did it on the same day that he announced the VIA Rail cuts. The Prime Minister has said he has great confidence in the chairman of that commission, confidence in all of its members, confidence in their ability to give us a blueprint for transportation in Canada.
He asks us to accept his statement at face value. Surely if you are to have a royal commission and listen to what it reports, it is foolish to cut train service first and ask a royal commission after the fact whether you have done the right thing. If the government has the confidence it says it has, if the Prime Minister personally has the confidence he says he has in this royal commission, then refer the whole question of the future of VIA Rail to the royal commission and in a year from now they can tell this Parliament what they think the role of rail passenger service is in Canada's future.
I am not used to taking that kind of non-partisan approach. I have to admit that I have a few partisan bones in my body. I have to tell you that there are other words I could use to describe this decision of the government. I will not do that today because you know I am appealing, not for the votes of the people who are watching, but appealing to members opposite. I am appealing to Conservative members of Parliament to take a stand in exactly the same way that Conservative members of the transport committee took a stand, exercised their best judgment, exercised their individual conscience, heard what their constituents, who had
reason enough to doubt this decision, were saying and were prepared to buck the party line.
I am not used to saying anything nice about Tories. It is a rare day. It could cost me the vote of a few right-to-the-backbone Liberals in Newfoundland talking this way, but the issue is bigger than partisanship. The issue is bigger than merely making sure that those who are upset about VIA Rail will not vote Tory. The real issue for us here is to see whether or not we can save a rail passenger service in this country.
Across the street today at the conference on the economy the premiers of Canada, representing every political stripe, are saying to the Prime Minister this morning that they agree with the report of a lowly, humble collection of members who make up the Standing Committee on Transport. They are saying: "We think they have done good work. We think their recommendation is worth considering and we, too, call upon the Prime Minister to pay attention to the report of the Standing Committee on Transport and to declare a moratorium on the cuts to VIA Rail and to refer this matter to the Prime Minister's royal commission for consideration." I ask members in this House and, in particular, I ask members on the government side to find a way to get a message to the Prime Minister, to the Minister of Transport, to the cabinet, that this decision to slash, cripple, and cut VIA Rail is wrong. It is a decision not to cut fat, not to cut muscle, but to cut beyond the muscle and into the bone marrow and bleed it dry. This decision is wrong. Canada deserves better. As a nation we need a modem, efficient mass transportation system, a rail passenger service. We have an obligation to those least fortunate among us and those who most depend upon this rail service to ensure that it continues.
I cannot help but note, as many members would note because we are politicians, what has been happening in the public opinion polls these days. I dare to offer some advice to my friends opposite. The polls are not a reflection, as much as I would like to think they are, of the tremendous and overwhelming job that we in the opposition benches are doing. They are not a tribute to the tremendous ability at Question Period, either in this party or in that party. They are not a tribute to our oratorical skills. They are not a tribute to our powers of persuasion but we do our job as honestly and as effectively as we can. The polls are a reflection of government policy. The goods and services tax is a policy being
November 9, 1989

imposed upon the people of Canada despite the opposition of every premier of Canada and every region of Canada-


Mr. Wappel:: And the people of Canada.


Brian Vincent Tobin: -and the people of Canada. Then there are the cuts to VIA Rail, again a fundamental service to Canadians, that could give us a chance to go into the future confident and prepared for the year 2000. Those cuts are opposed by every premier of Canada, opposed by the people of Canada. I say to members opposite, and particularly to members who support this cabinet, the back-benchers, that the eyes and the ears of the people of Canada are on those back-benchers. They are watching them. They are weighing their words. They believe the time has come that members have to speak and reflect the values of their constituents and stand up and be counted, not in the name of opposing a particular political Party or supporting another, but in the name of the legitimate aspirations of Canada.
I say to those who choose to remain silent, and I know that many share my views, the people of Canada are becoming increasingly impatient and you ought not to try their patience too far. Make a stand for parliamentary reform, make a stand for Canada, stand for yourself because I know, in your conscience, those opposite cannot support these brutal cuts to VIA Rail.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by 15 minutes.


Mr. Layton:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte has today reopened the debate relating to subsidies for VIA Rail. These subsidies totalled over $600 million in 1988 and supported travellers on some lines to the tune of hundreds of dollars per trip. The hon. member supports the motion that was passed by a committee to the extent that a moratorium be applied to the reductions in the costs of VIA Rail. My question to the hon. member would be: How does he propose to pay for it?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker-
Supply


Robert E.J. Layton: No, I am going to ask two or three questions. I know that the member is anxious to be on his feet and answer another question, but I really wonder about my young friend's position on this. Is he aware that every $100 million we add to the debt is one day going to be on the backs of our children and grandchildren? How would he propose, other than by fiscal management which this government is introducing, that we reduce the cost of government and reduce the debt in the future?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my "not-so-young" friend, who has been here since 1984, that in my experience since 1980 governments at the end of the day have to make choices. I find it really somewhat amazing that my colleague opposite would say: "How are you going to pay for this?" Canadians are asking how it is that when the government makes choices it has no problem displacing three million Canadians-and those are the government's own estimates, not mine-three million Canadians who rode the rails in 1988 and will not do so next year because there is no space for them. Canadians are asking how the government has no trouble displacing those three million Canadians for $600 million a year, and the government equally has no problem spending $1 billion so that we can give a couple of Canadians a ride on the American space shuttle program.
The space program cost $1 billion. I am just giving some examples. It cost $1 billion to get the Minister of the Environment elected in a by-election. To give one guy a ride, a ticket to the House of Commons, the government laid out $1 billion during a by-election. I did not hear members opposite saying: "That is an awful ungodly price to pay for Lucien Bouchard". We could ride six million people, over two years, for the cost of getting the Minister of the Environment into Parliament.
What I am saying is it is very misleading for the member to stand and say that a figure that represents 0.6 of 1 per cent of the total budget is a tremendous amount of money, and then ask what are we going to cut and how are we going to pay for it. I am suggesting and what the committee is suggesting is that the government is going to have to spend more than the $600 million. If it truly believes that Canada alone among nations must go into the year 2000 without a rail passenger service, then follow this decision. Let us follow this decision. Let us put more cars and millions more people on the highways,

November 9, 1989
Supply
let us congest even more Toronto International and other airports around the country. Let us pollute this environment. The government has obviously come to the conclusion that with the destruction of the tropical jungles of this planet, there will not be a planet in 15 or 20 years anyway. Let us save our pennies in the piggy bank now.
When I go to buy a house, I expect to have to pay a great deal of money up front, more than I would like to pay of my disposable income because I am making an investment in my future and the future of my family. I believe that that kind of investment is necessary in Canada.
The reason VIA is losing money today is that the equipment is 35 years old. VIA has been raped-a strong word but I have to use it-by CN. VIA pays four to five times as much to ride CN rails as Amtrak in the United States is charged to ride American company rails. Why is that? VIA Rail has a president who is also president of CN. It is like the Liberal party having a president who is also president of the Tory party. We would be laughed out of town. This government has no problem appointing a president of VIA Rail who is also president of CN, and CN charges VIA Rail several hundred million dollars a year to ride its rails. What kind of a conflict of interest is that?
I said I did not want to be partisan but the member is sorely tempting me. I had better bite my tongue and sit down.


Mr. Pagtakhan:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte for his eloquent pleading that this House approve the recommendations contained in the second report of the Standing Committee on Transport calling for a moratorium on the government's proposed cuts to VIA Rail. He argued we should have a moratorium while the Royal Commission on a National Passenger Transportation System proceeds with its study. In contrast the government has indicated that the commission will proceed even after the VIA cuts had happend.
I am reminded of the story about asking an orthopaedic surgeon to first amputate the legs of a patient and then do a study as to whether the operation was required to begin with. That is the wrong approach. I can see from
the member's presentation that indeed this government has a policy of annihilation of VIA for this country.
Could the member indicate to the House the composition of the Standing Committee on Transport as to who constitutes the majority on this committee in terms of the representation from the three political parties? Second, is this very issue on the top agenda of the First Ministers' Conference now ongoing?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the member asked about the composition of the standing committee. The standing committee is made up of eight Conservative members, four Liberal members and two New Democratic Party members. So the Conservatives have a clear majority. All of the votes that could have been exercised that day were exercised. A full complement was in place when the committee took this vote, and it had a clear majority. I do not want to say which Conservatives voted for or against. I do not think it is appropriate in the spirit of reform. The meeting was in camera. It was private. I do not seek to embarrass any individuals, but it should be clear to everybody that this report, which was laid before the House yesterday, and this debate which is occurring today, could only have occurred if Conservative members of Parliament joined with opposition members in saying that the decision of the Government of Canada was wrong.
I want to re-emphasize that this is not a partisan statement. This is a statement from the members who have been charged by Parliament to examine transportation policy. These are people who make it their business every single day to be involved in transportation issues, people who have on many other occasions approved of government initiatives, people whose first role in Parliament in terms of their obligations beyond their constituency is the transportation policy of Canada. That is the group, with the majority Conservative members, that has said this decision to proceed with cuts on January 15 is wrong for Canada.
All I can say is now is the time for Canadians right across this country to get out their pen, get out their paper, to write their members of Parliament to once again tell us how you feel because I think there may be a thaw occurring across the way and perhaps as a consequence there is some chance for VIA Rail.
November 9, 1989


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will entertain a question from the hon. member for Nepean and then the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, and if we could get in with the hon. member for Winnipeg-Trans-cona, we will, before eleven o'clock. Point of Order, the hon. member for Winnipeg-'Transcona.


Mr. Blaikie:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have raised this many times in the House. The instruction with respect to the question and comment period is clear. The Chair is advised to recognize members of parties other than the person who is speaking, if such members are rising. In the absence of members rising from parties other than the person who is speaking, the Chair is free to recognize people from that party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Generally it can be that practice, but the hon. member for Winnipeg- Strathcona was not in the House, then sitting there and not rising. The hon. member for Nepean was rising. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona was rising. I said if there is time I will call upon the hon. gentleman.


Mrs. Gaffney:: First of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte for a very compelling speech on the reasons for relooking at VIA Rail and the needs of Canadians right across the country.
My question arises from the statement from the member on the government side of the House and I would like my colleague's opinion on how we would propose paying for VIA Rail. We have all known that the manufacturers' sales tax-and the government side of the House has known this since 1984-that there is a $350 million loophole annually where moneys were being lost in revenue to the Government of Canada. The government has known this since 1984 and has not plugged this loophole.
I would like my colleague's comments with regard to the deficit for operating VIA Rail. Does he see that this money could have been moved over toward the VIA Rail deficit and it could have reduced that in some manner?


Brian Vincent Tobin: I want to point out that the committee- and I do not have time to go into details-does not believe the government will save one penny on the deficit by cutting VIA Rail. We had some very noted economists come before our committee-again non-partisan contributions-who said that when you have taken the loss of tourism dollars, the loss of jobs, the loss of direct and indirect spin-offs to the economy, the pay-out in social welfare programs and unemployment insurance, the additional cost in having increasingly clogged highways and airports and building new runways, you are not going to save a cent. All you are going to do is spend more money in other areas and in the process congest highways, congest our airports, and most shocking of all, pollute this fragile environment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 35, the House will now proceed to statements by members under Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, according to an article in today's edition of The Gazette of Montreal signed by Andrew McIntosh, a Granby engineer would have been given assurances by the Office of the Prime Minister that an RCMP investigation in the Gravel case would not result in any charges being laid against the individual in question. Those are very troubling allegations, particularly in view of the fact that this House has heard of similar accusations as a result of incidents earlier this week. Because of the sub judice rule, I cannot describe those incidents in any great detail.
In the space of a few days we have heard of possible political interference by the government in two separate RCMP investigations. The independence of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police from any political interference or possible political interference is of paramount importance to the proper administration of justice in this country.
These allegations must be looked into. If they are unfounded, so much the better. If they turn out to be true, the House will have to deal with this issue and more particularly the government should respond as soon as possible.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
November 9, 1989
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the situation in Lebanon I am pleased that the Minister of Employment and Immigration has accepted a number of recommendations proposed by the immigration committee.
Yet, by refusing to accept that a special designated class be created to assist the Lebanese with resettlement, the Minister of Employment and Immigration sent a clear signal that the government is not seriously prepared to extend a hand of welcome to those afflicted by strife. Her outright rejection will certainly further the 80 per cent rejection rate of Lebanese trying to escape the hardships of civil war.
Clearly, by accepting only Lebanese with family members in Canada, the signal the minister and her government is sending out is that those Lebanese without family members need not apply. The minister's mixed response to the report and her rejection of the special designated class is truly perplexing since, after all, it was the high refusal rate of Lebanese citizens to Canada which initially triggered the standing committee's report.
In light of her actions I urge the minister and the government not to reject categorically the option of creating a special designated class, should the fighting resume and intensify and should the accepted changes not ameliorate the situation in Lebanon significantly.


NORTHERN TAX ALLOWANCE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, northern and isolated Canadians could soon be gouged and screwed twice over, not only by the upcoming goods and services tax but also by the savage cuts to their northern tax benefits. The task force on these benefits has recently recommended that the Minister of Finance simplify the northern and isolated benefit system. The task force has drawn the northern line across this country in such a way that 83 per cent of all communities now receiving benefits will lose them.
On behalf of these communities and the caucus of northern New Democratic members of Parliament, I say that this is completely unacceptable. We do not need a so-called simple benefits system. We need a fair system
that takes into account the extremes of isolation and climate in Canada.
New Democrats have initiated a petition campaign against this unfair government tax grab. Canadians from northern B.C., Alberta, northern Ontario and elsewhere who do not have a New Democratic Party MP can call or write any of our offices to receive this petition and to fight this government tax grab.


ECONOMIC REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Agriculture for the effort they put into the signing of the recent ERDAs in my province. Both agreements total approximately $50 million.
I know that I speak on behalf of the minister of fisheries and the minister responsible for agriculture in the province of New Brunswick as well as the Premier.
These are very important agreements for the province of New Brunswick, so I do thank the federal government, the Minister of Agriculture, and our federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for expediting these very important agreements.


TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, Friday is the tenth anniversary of the great train derailment in Mississauga in which 250,000 residents were evacuated from their homes.
CP Train 54 was carting a shipment of toxic chemicals and the accident had the potential of becoming one of the most devastating man-made disasters in history. Ten years later a similar accident could still occur.
According to the union representing railway car men and train safety inspectors, CP and CN railways have laid off more than 2,000 safety inspectors since the 1979 derailment. When this government made the decision to deregulate the Canadian transportation industry, it accepted a responsibility to increase the emphasis on monitoring safety standards.
November 9, 1989

On the anniversary of the Mississauga derailment and after hearing the preliminary conclusions of the Dryden inquiry, the minister should assure this House that the Royal Commission on Transportation will set a priority on establishing new national safety standards for the industry.


KIDNAPPINGS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Michelle Duquette of Val d'Or is under great stress today because she is trying to get her son back who was taken away by her ex-husband, a U.S. citizen of Egyptian origin living in the United States.
Last May, the Superior Court of Quebec gave Mrs. Duquette custody of her six-year old son for the duration of the school year. On June 24, Mrs. Duquette, acting in good faith, sent Kareen to his father's home in New Jersey for the summer holidays. The child was supposed to come back in time for the new school year, but his mother has not seen him since.
Mr. Speaker, I know this is a legal matter, but it is above all a human tragedy. Will the decision of our Canadian courts be respected, in accordance with the Convention of The Hague in effect since July, 1988, between Quebec and the United States?


POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, today the Canadian Federation of Students is converging on Parliament Hill. Students are here from every part of Canada to protest the frontal attack this government has made on post-secondary education.
Education is not just a concern for students. Canada's future prosperity is dependent upon a highly educated workforce, trained men and women who are prepared to confront the rapidly changing world economy and ensure Canada's place in international markets.
Yet the response of this government is to slash spending on education. The government has introduced
Bill C-33, which together with cuts implemented by the government three years ago will cut nearly $7 billion from education over nine years.
This follows the disgraceful record of the Liberals who slashed university funding in the infamous 6 and 5 program of former Finance Minister MacEachen. This is a full retreat from education by the federal government. The regions are being hung out to dry and the groundwork is being laid for privatization of universities.
Education will soon be out of reach for ordinary Canadians. Along with student representatives from across Canada, I and the New Democratic Party demand a return to fair and adequate funding for post-secondary education.
Rhetoric from the Prime Minister is not enough. The government needs to commit itself now to Canadian students, to Canadians in general, and to the future of the country.


EXTRADITION
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Minister of Justice for his decision to extradite the suspected mass murderer, Charles Ng. This decision will send a strong message that Canada is not a safe haven for criminals from other countries.
In a survey of my constituents they massively supported the position that criminals like Ng be returned to their own countries. It is clear that Canadians will not tolerate our laws being used to shelter foreign criminals.
It is clear to me that discretionary power granted to the minister under Article 6 of the Canada-U.S. Extradition Treaty serves to protect Canadian interests. It is also clear that the decision to block extradition must be carefully considered.
In this case the decision to allow extradition was a proper course to follow. I am still disturbed that Mr. Ng may yet remain in Canada for some time to come. I trust the minister will take whatever action is necessary to ensure that in the future the extradition process will proceed much more quickly.

November 9, 1989


PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, for two weeks now 1,500 parole officers have been on strike. The salaries of these parole officers are 14 per cent behind those of their counterparts in Ontario and 24 per cent behind those in Quebec. Is it any wonder they want a better deal?
For two and a half years the government has been negotiating this contract. It took until this week to put a serious offer on the table and get the unions back to the bargaining table. Tension is building in the prisons across Canada. There are 8,000 parolees out in our communities without normal supervision. Tempers are rising and patience is wearing thin. Inmates are being denied family visits; absences for Christmas may be jeopardized. People eligible for parole are being kept in prison.
Just as important, included in this group of workers are those who provide services to our veterans and their survivors. Tlrey ensure that they get the social, health and financial assistance they need. It includes those who serve native Indians across Canada with alcoholism treatment programs and child protection programs. All are being denied services while the President of Treasury Board plays games.
I urge the minister and the government to ensure that these negotiations conclude quickly so that these people can get back to work.


FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the beginning of a very important First Ministers' Conference here in Ottawa. It is obvious that there are serious problems and disagreements across our country. We would encourage all participants to look at our nation as a whole rather than as individual provinces or regions, because it is only as a whole that we will be a strong and viable nation.
I would encourage the Prime Minister to maintain his position of strong national leadership and policies of reconciliation and fairness to all Canadians. As a proud British Columbian I am firmly convinced that we need Quebec and Quebec needs us.
Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister, for your hard work and leadership in keeping us together.


INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the most important industrial investment in Drummond-ville's history. CDM Laminates Inc., a branch of Uniboard Canada, intends to set up a new plant in my riding that will produce decorative paper facings for low-pressure panels. This is part of an industrial project that will cost over $81 million and is expected to create 145 new jobs in the next few years.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted with the plans for these new facilities, whose production will be mostly exported to overseas destinations but will also help replace imports.
The activities of this company will result in a major transfer of technology from Europe, which will benefit not only Drummondville but the whole country.
This project represents new industrial activity in Drummondville that will have a very positive impact on current economic development, thanks to the involvement of the Canadian Government.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I told the House that the best estimates of the amount of new carbon dioxide that will be produced by the OSLO and Hibernia projects range from 20 to 35 million metric tons. That is an increase of between 4 per cent and 7 per cent of Canada's current total CO2 emissions.
Unfortunately these estimates are necessarily vague because as incredible as it may seem no one has yet undertaken anything approaching a thorough study of probable CO2 emissions from OSLO and Hibernia.
The environmental impact study done on the Hibernia project in 1985 does not even mention CO2 emissions. And, so far, no government department has yet begun a serious assessment of CO2 emissions from OSLO.
November 9, 1989

We are tired of hearing the environment minister utter pious platitudes about the importance of the environment in government decision making when every major action undertaken by the government shows a literally breathless disregard for the environment.
As a bare minimum the government must now commit itself to a thorough assessment of CO2 emissions from both projects before they proceed.


REMEMBRANCE DAY
Mr.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to those Canadians who sacrificed their lives for our country during war. While many brave soldiers did not return, many others did, and to the ones who did return I want to thank people like my father and thousands of other Canadians who fought for Canada so that I and many others of my generation would not have to experience the horrors of war.
Yes, this is a great country, strong and free, one of the greatest societies in the world. On behalf of all the people in Elk Island, I wish to recognize the tremendous sacrifice of the previous generation for my generation.
Let us all teach our children about the futility of war so that they will also experience a Canada of peace.


FINANCE
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians awoke this morning to the news that the Canadian dollar has reached an all time 10-year high.
Some people think the strength of the dollar is a good thing. The fact is that the stronger the dollar, the weaker the economy. That can be seen in the deplorable state of our export markets. Our current accounts are now at the lowest rate they have been in 10 years. The fact of the matter is that for every additional cent added to the dollar we lose $1.3 billion in exports.
I know members opposite do not care about our export market because they have already sold out that market, but the fact of the matter is that every time the dollar rises it is the regions that produce our resources, our
Oral Questions
export earners in wood, fish, grain, potash and minerals, that suffer.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker: it is about time the Minister of Finance forgot his foolish obsession to the goods and services tax, his ill-begotten attempt to force this country into bankruptcy, and started to really manage the economy, to get the interest rates down and get the dollar down so that Canada can begin competing again in world markets.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ken Monteith (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, on November 7, the Minister of Agriculture released a discussion paper entitled Growing Together. This paper incorporates the concerns expressed by farmers over the past four years and lays the foundation for an effective dialogue among partners in agriculture-the producer, the federal government and the provincial governments.
This paper outlines pillars essential for growth in the Canadian agri-food industry. These pillars are market responsiveness, self-reliance, regional sensitivity and environmental sustainability. They are essential to Canada and Canadian farmers maintaining the leading edge as producers of high quality foods.
I encourage all producer organizations, individual farmers and politicians from all levels of government to examine this document carefully. Now is the time for communication on this important issue. Let us get our thoughts on the table so that fruitful discussion can take place and a new comprehensive agricultural policy can be put in.place for the 1990s and beyond.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. There is a great deal of confusion with respect to the goods and services tax, and it is becoming a question now of who Canadians can believe on this matter. I think they deserve to know the truth about the goods and services tax.

Oral Questions
In an interview that we have referred to in this House this week the Minister of Finance was asked about the province's position on the goods and services tax and he said: "They have agreed. Behind closed doors, they will say you've got to go ahead with this, Mike; no question of that."
The minister has said federal studies show that the effect of the goods and services tax on nine of the provinces would be neutral to positive. The provinces, as the Deputy Prime Minister will know, released a report last night in which it is stated that the goods and services tax could cost the provinces in this country $6.9 billion and result in the loss of 434,000 jobs between 1991 and 1993.
Will the government now at last make public its studies so that Canadians can determine exactly what the impact of the goods and services tax will be on them? In other words, let us find out who is telling the truth about the goods and services tax.


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that my colleague, the Minister of Finance, this morning described the analysis which was made yesterday as a ridiculous distortion of reality, and I stand by that. It is based on a study made by the Conference Board, and I would like to remind the hon. member that over the last few weeks the Conference Board has been all over the place.
A few weeks ago it said that the GST would probably result in a loss of 200,000 jobs. Then later it said: "Oops, we've made a mistake. It will not be 200,000 jobs. It will be 40,000 jobs." Now it comes back with a new number, so this analysis is flawed. I would like to inform the hon. member that we have made public this morning a document which will be very helpful to him.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, the question still stands. To whom is the government listening in this debate on the GST? They now tell us the provinces don't understand. They say the Conference Board of Canada did not provide realistic figures, but it has been months since we first asked the Minister of Finance to produce the figures to justify his claim that only Alberta would be punished by the GST. My question is this: Considering that the House of Commons, the Canadian Labour
Congress, the Consumers Association of Canada and Canada's ten Premiers are opposed to the GST, to whom is the government listening in this debate on GST, if it disagrees with the data produced by all the intervenors I just mentioned?


Gilles Loiselle: The government has been extremely attentive to all the information it has received. When you say that Alberta will be punished-we never said that. All regions in Canada will benefit under this reform. I would advise the Hon. Member against taking at face value, positions that just before a conference or negotiations are probably used by the provinces as a bargaining stance. I may recall that every time this Government announced economic measures in its Budget, Members on the other side of the House have said they were a disaster. His leader said-


An Hon. Member:: They should know about disasters! That's what it was like for 20 years!


Gilles Loiselle: -when we brought down our 1985 Budget: "Your Budget, this $4 billion cutback, will put between 125,000 and 150,000 Canadians out of work". Mr. Speaker, this Government created jobs in 1985, and in fact, since 1984 it has created 1.5 million jobs, and we intend to keep up the good work.


VIA RAIL
M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that we cannot seem to get any clarification on the confusion around the goods and services tax, maybe because we have the support of a considerable number of Conservative members on this issue, the Minister of Transport might be able to address this question that I would like to put to him.
We have heard mayors from all over Canada, representatives from the handicapped in Canada, and representatives of students and senior citizens discussing the cuts to VIA Rail. I wonder if the Minister of Transport would tell us today whether or not he is prepared to accept the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Transport which includes a majority number of members from his own political party?

November 9, 1989

Will he recognize the motion that has been put and accepted by the transport committee that a moratorium should be put on the cuts that he proposes to VIA Rail? With respect to the cuts to VIA Rail, will the government at least listen to its own members if it will not listen to us?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary reform has been done in a way that members can express their views to the government. I think that is what the transport committee did yesterday. Unfortunately it is a sad way to express their views, using the transport committee as a place to play political football. If new views have to be presented, they should have been presented to the ministers yesterday.
I looked carefully at the report. Nothing is new in that report. The per passenger kilometre cost for air, considering international flights, is absolutely wrong. I challenge my friend to contest figures which have been presented by my department. For that reason I repeat what I have already said. We will not have any moratorium on VIA Rail.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the provincial governments of Canada are here today to discuss the economy, including the premiers of the major provinces of Canada. They are saying that they agree with the report of an all-party standing committee in its request for a moratorium on VIA Rail cuts. The mayors of all the major cities are saying that they agree. The disenfranchised millions of Canadians who are losing VIA Rail service are saying they agree.
My question to the Minister of Transport is straightforward. Given that a standing committee, operating in the spirit of reform, has said it is not convinced by the government's environmental assessment, is not convinced by the government's numbers with respect to the deficit and is not convinced that VIA Rail can survive at all if these cuts go ahead, why will this government in the spirit of conciliation it promised when it came to power not listen to Parliament and members from all parties, declare a moratorium and give VIA Rail a chance?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I met the same mayors my colleague met this week. This morning I heard the Premier of Ontario say that he was in full support of the report tabled yesterday,
Oral Questions
and I have respect for the Premier of Ontario. Neither the mayors nor the premier this morning could say that they were ready to put up $100 million for a moratorium.
The committee does not say that we should have a moratorium of such and such a length. It could be open to three or four years. For three years it would cost over $500 million. Once again, when I asked the question of the mayors of Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal this week "are you ready to put money into VIA Rail", there was total silence in the room.
When I heard the Premier of Ontario this morning, he did not say that he was ready to put the money in. If I may, I would like to say what was said after the cuts the Liberals made in 1981, by one of the Liberal members:
"No one wants his or her favourite program reduced or eliminated. The government's deficit will be reduced through the elimination of highly unprofitable services and unfortunately will hurt the travel facilities of a few. But what else in the end is to be done?" I quote the Liberal member for Etobicoke North in 1981. That is the same rationale today. We do not have the money. We will not have the money. We will not have any moratorium.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the cuts of 1981 were restored in 1984 by the member for Winnipeg South Centre who was then Minister of Transport.
My question to the Minister of Transport goes to the heart of this government's credibility. On the same day that this minister opposite, the Minister of Transport, announced the VIA Rail cuts, the same minister announced the Royal Commission on Transportation in Canada. The minister and the Prime Minister have said they have confidence in the members of this royal commission, have confidence in their integrity and in their ability to do a job, and will listen to their advice.
How can the minister expect Canadians to believe that he has that kind of confidence if he is going to destroy, gut, terminate, assassinate VIA Rail first and ask for advice on the decision later?
If the minister believes in what he says, he should accept the recommendation of an all-party committee, listen to Canadians, give the royal commission a chance to do its job and put an end to this bare-faced hypocrisy on VIA Rail.

November 9, 1989
Oral Questions


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the member could understand the mandate of the commission. We have been very clear about the mandate of the commission, which has been set up by the Prime Minister to determine the vision of integration of all transportation modes for the future. Exactly what we are trying to avoid is the short view proposal made by the member.
If we deal, as the Liberals did for 20 years, for three or four months, if we deal for another three or four months without any kind of vision for transportation, we make a decision for the day and the day after. We just wake up with a $300 billion debt with the deficit that the Liberals created. This is what we can avoid. The Royal Commission on Transportation has been set up to deal with the future of transportation. The mandate is clear. The members have been selected and the commission will work in the way that we have decided that it will work.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, and it too is on what the chairman of the finance committee has called the gouge and screw tax.
What I want to know from the Deputy Prime Minister today is: What are the federal government figures in terms of the impact on the provinces? We saw the study released yesterday in which the provinces say that they will lose some 400,000 jobs and $7 billion worth of provincial revenues. We know the Minister of Finance has now confirmed that Alberta will certainly be a loser.
I want to know how many jobs will be lost. How much money will be lost? Is the minister really saying in this House today that 10 Premiers representing about three or four political parties are wrong and that he is right, that he knows it all? Can he put up or shut up in the House today?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, what we are saying is not that 10 Premiers are wrong. We are saying that their analysis is wrong, the analysis that has been produced for them. They did not produce it themselves. The Conference Board study on
the same subject has varied tremendously over the last few months.
I would like to remind the hon. gentleman that the same accusations were made of us in the past by his leader. In 1984 he said that the Minister of Finance knew that his program would lose between 50,000 and 100,000 jobs. He said of the minister, "Rather than admit it, the minister is trying to keep the truth from the people". We are not keeping the truth from the people, Mr. Speaker. We created jobs in 1984. We created jobs in 1985, 1986, 1987, and we will continue to create jobs this year and next year, thanks to the GST which is a modem way of organizing our fiscal system.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that even you will remember that a year ago the Minister of Finance was saying that the world was beautiful, the economy was booming, and jobs were being created. Yet they will not even give us the documents on which they base those statements.
The minister has said that the analysis that was done for the provinces is wrong. The Minister of Finance has also said publicly that many premiers agree in private with the GST, yet every single premier has said no. I want to know today whether the minister can get up and identify those premiers who agree with the GST. If he cannot do that, will he stop misrepresenting the premiers of this country. Put up or shut up.


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recognize that for practically two years, the provinces worked with us very closely on preparing what is the GST; a very similar tax, the same model. The fact that it is provincial and federal does not change the basic issue. On that subject, we stand by that.
As far as the analysis is concerned, I would like to advise the hon. member that we have, and we are very proud to have, a very sophisticated method, which has been explained in more detail publicly today, which takes into account the IMF and OECD inputs and which has given results which indicate, without any doubt, that in the short term, and even more in the medium and long-term, this will be beneficial for the economy.
The Minister of Finance, my colleague, said it is a nice world because job creation is a nice thing.
November 9, 1989


VIA RAIL
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister who once was a staunch defender of rail passenger services.
Today at the First Ministers' Conference the premiers are raising with the Prime Minister their request, which parallels that of the mayors and that of the Standing Committee on Transport, for a moratorium on the cuts to VIA Rail until such time as the royal commission has had an opportunity to review rail passenger services and report, in order that the government, rather than the biased information it has been working with, has a clear and independent review.
Will this government finally listen to the will of the provinces and the Canadian people it represents and declare a moratorium on the VIA Rail cuts?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said before. As he knows very well, the reason why VIA Rail has been rationalized in terms of the support we give financially is that we could not afford any more. We could not afford to put much more money into a system which basically people do not use.
I asked the mayors this week if they were ready to put forward the money necessary to keep the service. That question was asked of the mayors at the committee, at which my friend was present, and unanimously the mayors said "No".
If we do not have the money we have to cut services. The reason we do not accept any moratorium is that we have to apply the decision by January 15, 1990.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to members' attention the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Mikolaj Koka-kiewicz, the Speaker of the Polish Sejm.


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


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The report released last evening by the provincial governments indicated that more than 400,000 jobs would be lost as a result of this goods and services tax. Put that together with the Minister of Finance's budget speech on April 27 when he said that next year unemployment would increase to 8.5 per cent. Then we have the report of the Bank of Montreal which says that next year unemployment will increase to 9 per cent. As well we have a recent report of the Conference Board of Canada which says we are on the brink of a recession.
In these circumstances, why is the government proceeding with this goods and services tax which is going to hurt so many Canadians? Why is the government putting its right wing Tory agenda ahead of jobs for Canadians?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, for the very simple reason that the agenda we have had has worked very well. It has produced the best job-creation rate of the industrialized world, the best growth rate, the best increase in productivity and the best climate for investment. A million and a half new jobs have been created since this government assumed office. The unemployment rate has been brought down from 11.7 per cent to 7.3 per cent and it is declining. We have just gone through a period that has been reported as one of the strongest periods of growth in the last six months.
What is the hon. member complaining about? Is he complaining about the fact that jobs are being created and there is growth in the economy? If that is what he is complaining about then he is on the wrong side of the issue.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, unemployed Canadians will not be happy with that answer. Canadians no longer believe this government when it talks about the jobs it has created and the economy it is managing, and that is evident from the poll released this morning which indicates that 69 per cent of Canadians do not believe that this government is doing the job that it should do.

November 9, 1989
Oral Questions
If the government does not accept the report of the provinces that 400,000 jobs will be lost as a result of this goods and service tax, why does the government not put on the table in this Parliament its impact studies? How many jobs does it think will be lost as a result of the goods and services tax? Tell us the truth.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can tell my hon. friend that the people who have jobs today who did not have jobs in 1984 are a lot happier than they were when the Liberals were in office when there was stagnation, high unemployment, high inflation and a feeling of desperation across this country. That has changed. Ask the young people, within whose group the unemployment rate has dropped by about 7 or 8 per cent in the last four or five years.
The fact is that the figures do not lie. There has been an outstanding performance by the economy. In 1984 when the Minister of Finance outlined his program for economic renewal, this member's leader said that we were going to lose 125,000 to 150,000 jobs. They were wrong then and they are wrong today.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, only this government would claim recovery from a world economy as it professes to do.
My question is to the Minister of Transport. VIA services in Ontario are the most used and supported and vital to the economy of Ontario and Canada in the areas of tourism, business and jobs, not to speak of the well-being of our seniors, students and travellers.
Municipal leaders, the transport committee, the premiers and millions of Canadians have called for a moratorium. The minister knows that a moratorium for one year will not cost hundreds of millions of dollars, as he has just professed, if you do not have to lay off those people.
I ask again, will the minister wake up, see the light, listen to the people, listen to his own piece, and invoke this moratorium?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, first of all, that the trains will continue to run in Ontario as in any other province except Newfoundland
and Prince Edward Island. We will have passenger train service everywhere in the country.
I know that Canadians want the train, but Canadians have agreed too that for the last five years this country, for once, has been managed by expending the money we have. We do not mortgage our money for 25 years as was done before. We want to expend the money we have.
I want to manage the transportation system in a way in which we can consider all modes of transportation. To do that, we must consider cuts where necessary in order to have a balanced, fair, good and efficient service in the country.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Transport. Does the Minister realize that his decision, which is also his government's decision, may cause the province of Quebec to lose 10,000 jobs? Why does he keep saying no to the Premier of Quebec, the mayor of Montreal, the mayors of Quebec, the former and the present mayor of Quebec, the mayor of Trois-Rivieres, the municipal councils of 300 towns and municipalities in Quebec, including the City of Chicoutimi which is represented by the Chairman of the Quebec Caucus, and no as well to the Front Commun des Syndicats du rail-FTQ, all of whom want a one-year moratorium? Is the Minister prepared to put his credibility as Minister of Transport on the line and keep saying no to all these people who are asking for a one-year moratorium?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am sure the Hon. Member did not intend to be unnecessarily alarmist, but when he talks about 10,000 jobs in Montreal, that is just not true-


André Ouellet: In the province of Quebec.


Benoît Bouchard: -in the province of Quebec, but the Hon. Member, who is from Montreal, knows perfectly well that 95 per cent of the railway jobs in Quebec are in Montreal. So whether he says in Quebec or in Montreal, Mr. Speaker, it is still not true. We have given the exact figures. Exactly 962 jobs will be abandoned in Montreal, but these lay-offs will be handled with all the resources available under collective bargaining agreements, as the Hon. Member is well aware. Second, both in Quebec and elsewhere, and this applies to the Premier of Quebec as well as to the Premier of Ontario, to the mayor of Montreal and to the mayor of Toronto, none of these people, when they approached the government, were able to tell the federal government that they could invest the necessary funds. On the
November 9, 1989

contrary, this morning the Premier of Ontario talked about technological development in connection with high speed trains. We agree with that, provided we do not support services that are scarcely used today by Quebecers and other Canadians.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as the minister responsible for the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada. At 12.45 p.m. last Tuesday, Cameco Corporation reported a spill of 440,000 gallons of untreated mine water containing arsenic and radium 226 from its Rabbit Lake mine in northern Saskatchewan.
I understand that preliminary tests indicate that the danger is presently contained but some serious questions need to be answered. Why did a spill of this magnitude go unreported for 11 hours, even when the monitoring equipment was functioning? Is this spill related to the layoff of 96 workers since June in preparation for privatization? Were Atomic Energy Control Board personnel on the scene at the time this was happening and what was their role? And will the minister immediately call a public inquiry to look into what looks like a total breakdown of the nuclear regulatory system?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for asking the question. We have been examining the matter at the Collins Bay mine, located near Rabbit Lake, Saskatchewan, very carefully. The first point I would like to make to the hon. member is that the Collins Bay mine had been shut down for approximately three months. Pumping was taking place so that the mine would not be flooded. Second, the water in question is primarily seepage and rainwater. The AECB has a person on site.
The only thing the hon. member said in his question that is at variance with the information I have received is
Oral Questions
that the monitoring system was functioning. The information that I have received is that it was not functioning and that is part of the question the AECB is trying to determine.
As to the level of arsenic, nickel and the radioactive materials, the information that he had in his question, namely that preliminary studies show that it is well within the Saskatchewan limits, has been given to me today, but obviously I want more questions answered with respect to this issue.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his answer. As he knows, there is a real question as to whether those limits in fact are safe in this day and age, knowing what we do.
My supplementary question is to the same minister. As he knows, this water is now in Wollaston Lake. Twelve hundred people depend on Wollaston Lake for their food, their livelihood and their drinking water. Why were these people not informed immediately? Why did Ed Benoanie, the chief, not get a straight answer until 20 hours after the spill was discovered, 18 hours after he flew over the site, and 14 hours after he phoned the mine for information? Was it the recommendation of the AECB personnel on the site that the chief be stonewalled?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in response to that second question I will refer my friend to the last part of my answer. I cannot answer the allegation that was in the question. My position as minister is that AECB in fact discovered the leakage. As I said, the information I received was that the monitoring system was not working for between 15 and 17 hours. At the present time AECB is on site.
We have met with company officials and the province of Saskatchewan. The Minister of the Environment and I have discussed this issue today as well. We want answers for what has happened. We want that fully aired, fully investigated. I am sure my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, and I would be very interested, not only in having that information but in making it public to assure people what happened, what the danger level, if any, was, and how it can be corrected in order that we do not have the incident repeated.

November 9, 1989
Oral Questions AIRPORTS


Godfrey Stanley (Stan) Wilbee: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The previous Liberal government gave an unprecedented 49-year lease on the Boundary Bay airport in Delta when it was re-activated in 1983. Since the lease was granted there have been many complaints both from individuals and companies who utilize the airport. Until recently all of these complaints had been essentially stonewalled in the political and bureaucratic system.
In order to clarify the situation at Boundary Bay, would the minister consider an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the granting of the lease and the operating record of the lease holders? In view of the fact that a new group wants to take over that lease, would the minister consider either cancelling or renegotiating the lease so that the municipality of Delta would be involved in the operation and management of this very important economic generator in Delta?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my friend for his question. I know that he is a former alderman for the city of Delta. The airport of Boundary Bay represents one of the key factors in the development of air transportation in the Vancouver area.
I know that the officers of the department are working particularly on this file but I would like to undertake, on his request, to make my own investigation about this lease. I will report to the member later.


FORESTRY
Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Forestry. Given the fact that forestry is the single largest sector of the economy in New Brunswick, employing approximately 38,000 people and accounting for 47 per cent of the total exports in the province of New Brunswick, I am interested to know from the minister when the ERDA, the economic agreement between the federal and provincial governments, will be signed. Given the fact that the fisheries and agricultural agreements have
already been signed, can the minister expedite this as quickly as possible?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, I am able to confirm that sufficient resources have been identified to construct and negotiate an agreement with New Brunswick. In fact $91 million has been earmarked for a new agreement. Such an agreement will satisfy the needs of the forestry community as well as accommodating certain important national objectives.
I want to thank the hon. member for his constructive input and I can tell him that negotiations are going very well. I should be in a position very soon to announce and sign the agreement.


EDUCATION
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State. The Canadian Federation of Students is here today in Ottawa from all across Canada. Representatives from colleges, universities and other institutions of higher learning are here to fight the brutal attack of government on higher education. There has been a $7 billion slash of transfer payments over eight years, less money for training and retraining, and the government has not honoured its promises in research and development.
What will the minister and this government do to ensure that we do secure the future of our youth, that we protect our competitiveness, that we not put the nation at risk, that we have the human intellectual capital to be leaders and not followers?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, we recognize this as a very high priority; it is a national priority. Our human resource development is very important for our international competitiveness. It is not necessarily the amount of money that is being put into the program. We now have the second highest public sector spending in the world, from what I understand, second only to Sweden.
What is important to note is that there is a desire by many Canadians to examine the full system and see whether we are effectively getting the maximum use of the resources available.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the same minister.

Mr. Speaker, I do not question the Minister's comments, and in fact I think he makes some very good comments, but I question the action that was taken. You know perfectly well that the Federation objects to this government's brutal attack on the quality of education and on the access our young people have to colleges and universities. Does the Minister agree that students are Canada's future and that we must invest more in order to ensure that we have the knowledge and skills we need to become leaders?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, on November 21 I intend to meet both students and professors for an in-depth discussion. I am very much aware of the situation. I merely want to repeat that this governement has introduced a number of initiatives.

-the network of Centres of Excellence, $240 million; the Canada Scholarship Program, $80 million; the literacy program; the increased funding to the granting councils. There is absolutely nothing this government has to be ashamed of in the area of the development of human resources.
In addition, there is a desire by Canadians to have a full examination of what we are doing. I hope that the member who has just raised the question will be able to participate in the dialogue and that, in a co-operative fashion, we can find out how we can deliver a fully effective system for the resources that are now available.


JUSTICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday, in a hearing before a Quebec disciplinary committee of the Engineers' Order, we learned that a Granby engineer paid former Conservative member of Parliament, Michel Gravel, $5,000 in cash in exchange for helping him to win federal government contracts.
Oral Questions
During the hearing yesterday the engineer in question indicated that the former chief of staff to the Prime Minister, Bernard Roy, contacted the engineer in question while the RCMP investigation was under way, and I quote the engineer: "He told me this would only be a little in-house investigation and Gravel would quietly resign. There was not supposed to be any charges or any big scandal".
Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House and to Canadians why the former chief of staff of the Prime Minister was involving himself directly in an RCMP investigation, an investigation which ultimately led to charges and a guilty plea on corruption on the part of a Conservative MP?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been before the courts. The charges were fully investigated by the police and a court hearing was held. The individual has been found guilty and served his sentence. As far as we are concerned, justice has been served.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the question was not whether justice has been served with respect to Michel Gravel. The question was why on earth was the Prime Minister's former chief of staff directly involved at the level of an RCMP investigation into serious charges of corruption? That is the question. Particularly in light of recent allegations, who in fact directs the RCMP in this country today? Is it the commissioner of the RCMP, is it the Solicitor General or is it the Prime Minister's office. Who runs the RCMP?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The commissioner of the RCMP runs the RCMP. If my colleague has any evidence which he wishes to bring before the RCMP he should do so.


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Minister of Finance. In his absence perhaps his parliamentary secretary could try to give me an answer.
With increasing tuition fees and higher costs of living, more and more Canadians are finding it difficult to attend post-secondary educational institutions. Yet maximum student loan levels have not increased since 1984, funds for aboriginal post-secondary students have been capped and the GST will hit books and other educational materials. According to the Canadian Federation of Students, who are in town today, less than 1 per cent of

November 9, 1989
Oral Questions
Canada's 450,000 part-time students found student aid adequate for their 1987-88 needs.
If millions of dollars were made available to sell Canadians through daily newspapers, a tax that they do not want, why can the government not increase funds for student financial aid?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, we have a Canada student loan program which this year, from what I understand, will have about $400 million available. Some 42 per cent of all post-secondary students are now taking advantage of the Canada student loan program.
We do make a significant contribution to post-secondary education. From what I am advised close to 58 per cent of the dollar is our share of the contribution.
As far as comments on whether more can be done with the existing program, there is a current examination of the plan. We are trying to see how it can more effectively meet the needs of the part-time students, the disabled and women. Hopefully, we will have the advice of the member and all members of Parliament in seeing that we help those who really need the help.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Youth since the Secretary of State does not answer questions. It is in relation to the government's inaction on the GST.
Under the GST, people who earn more than $61,100 a year are eligible for a larger sales tax credit than those who make less than $61,100. That provision deliberately discriminates against students of this country. Why has the Minister of State for Youth remained silent on this issue? When is he going to start standing up for students of this country, the future of this nation?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, all Canadian university and college students are exempt from the payment of the GST on tuition and tutoring fees.
In addition, universities, colleges and public libraries will receive substantial subsidies on their purchases to ensure that their tax burdens do not increase.
Of course, to the extent that students make purchases as consumers, they will pay the tax on the same basis as other Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: A single question, the hon. member for York Centre.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In light of evidence being obtained on a number of fronts, including the developments at the engineering professional hearing that is referred to in the media this morning, an atmosphere of doom is developing over the RCMP which recalls the momentous resignation of Commissioner Nicholson of the RCMP who refused to obey the political direction being given by Prime Minister Diefen-baker.
In light of these developments, I ask the Minister of Justice for his assurance that any members of the RCMP who come forward with evidence against their superiors, or against officials in other departments, will be protected in their careers by the Minister of Justice. I want to ask him to take steps and what steps he will take to assure those members of the RCMP who are coming forward to tell the truth will not be harassed.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think that question is much below the dignity of the member who levied it. I think that we all have high respect for the RCMP for truth, and for justice. We are trying in this place to maintain that. That is why we have fought to make sure that nothing that is said in this place in any way endangers a fair trial for anybody.
I think it is about time that my friend concentrated on fair trials rather than muck-raking.
November 9, 1989


POINT OF ORDER
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its co-operation. In response to questions asked by the member for Prince Albert-Churchill River, I received some additional information which, hopefully, will be reassuring to the native people about whom he asked.
First, a community meeting was held last night to discuss the situation at the Collins Bay mine and the affected area. If the water is found to be unsafe for drinking, arrangements will be made for alternate water supplies.
Regional officials of the Department of Indian Affairs have been trying to contact the chief and are on their way to the community. Due to bad weather they have been delayed but should arrive shortly. We will keep on monitoring the situation.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, in response to the minister's statement, I wish to point out to him that in Cameco's release yesterday it says it was established that the monitoring equipment performed as designed and that the situation could have been reported shortly after the problem occurred. That is the information I have from Cameco.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, November 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Loiselle that Bill C-20, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act be now read a third time and do pass; and the amendment of Mr. Manley (p. 5750).
Mr. Speaker:: It being twelve o'clock, pursuant to the order made Tuesday, November 7, 1989, the House will now proceed to the deferred division on the amendment to Bill C-20, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act.
Call in the Members.
Government Orders


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. [English]


Mr. Masse:: Send a message to Ottawa.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Go to the UN, that's where you can abstain.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that the people listening do not think the heckling is for me.
I was going to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in the customary habit of this House to save time and to make it more understandable that we apply the vote just taken to the main motion on third reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the member for Ottawa-Vanier meant in reverse order.
Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Miss Grey:: Of course, I would like it also to be noted, Mr. Speaker, that had I voted on this I would have voted no on the main motion. But, of course, I am concerned about saving time in this House as well.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, before the House moves back to the opposition day motion, I would like to ask the government House leader to give us a statement of the business that will be dealt with by the House when we come back.
Second, I would like to ask the government House leader if he and his colleagues would be willing to agree to have the House sit until four o'clock instead of three o'clock. We already have to sit a longer period of time to make up for the statements with respect to Remembrance Day. We have had some time taken up by the vote. In view of the co-operation we have extended in not asking for a second vote, I am wondering if we could have the indulgence of the House in that regard.
The reason I ask this is that there are a number of members who would like to express their views on the subject matter of the opposition day motion.
Routine Proceedings


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if I could address the last item first. Yes, the government would be prepared to have the House sit until four o'clock today in order to allow for full debate on this matter.
I would like to advise the House that when we return on Monday, November 20, we will commence debate on Bill C-28. Further to the notice given on October 17 of this year, I give another notice, pursuant to Standing Order 57 that at the next sitting of the House, immediately before the reading of Orders of the Day for resuming debate on the motion of the Minister of Finance for second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-28, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, the Old Age Security Act, the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and a related Act, and any amendment thereto in any other Acts, I shall propose a motion that the debate thereon not be further adjourned.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: On Tuesday, November 21, we will continue debate on Bill C-43, the abortion legislation. We will also continue debate on Bill C-43 on Wednesday, November 22.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 210 petitions.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings. ]



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Hon. John W. Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade (Situation in Namibia).



BILL C-36- REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the Legislative Committee on

November 9, 1989
Routine Proceedings
Bill C-36, an Act to amend the Advanced Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, with amendment.



STRIKING COMMITTEE-TWENTY-SECOND AND TWENTY-THIRD REPORTS

Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the twenty-second and the twenty-third report of the Striking Committee. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the twenty-third report later later this day. I would ask that we dispense with the reading of that report by the Clerk at the table as that report concerns only membership changes to committees.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



MEMBERS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS CONFLICT OF INTERESTS ACT MEASURE TO ENACT

Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Deputy Prime Minister) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-46, an act to provide for greater certainty in the reconciliation of the personal interests and duties of office of Members of the Senate and the House of Commons, to establish a Conflict of Interest Commission and to make consequential amendments to other acts.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the hon. minister shall have to leave to introduce the bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Don Boudria: for leave to introduce Bill C-277, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (destruction of the foetus).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill, entitled an act to amend the Criminal Code (destruction of the foetus), would make it illegal in Canada to destroy
a foetus and would provide for serious punishment for those who destroy a foetus.
There is an exception in this bill to provide for where the life of the foetus was ended as a result of medical treatment necessary to prevent the death of the mother or to remedy a condition that, if left untreated, would likely cause the death of the mother.


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


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, if the House agrees, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier):
That the twenty-third report of the Striking Committee presented
earlier today be adopted.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present today petitions gathered through the offices of the Seniors Today weekly newspaper in Winnipeg, Manitoba. There are over 18,000 of names of people who have gathered together to protest the April 1989 budget of this government which would undermine the principle of universality in Canada, which would discriminate against recipients of old age security and family allowance benefits by making them bear an unfair burden of tax, irrespective of geographical location or other factors, and which would tax back old age
November 9, 1989

security and family allowance benefits in part or in their entirety, depending on the recipient's income.
All these people from Manitoba have joined together in calling upon Parliament and the government to change these measures suggested by the government, and to preserve the principle of universality in Canadian social policy.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege to table 13 more petitions in the House containing the names of 1,891 residents of Guelph, Chatham, Wallaceburg, Blenheim, Tilbury, Rid-getown and Thamesville, Ontario, who strongly believe in the right to life of the unborn.
The petitioners ask Parliament to legislate a law to protect life from conception, a law which seeks to save the life of both mother and child. I strongly support the petitioners' position.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which contains the names of many people from my riding who are concerned that there is no legislation in Canada to define and protect the life of the unborn child, and who now call upon Parliament to enact legislation which will effectively protect the life of the prebom child without distinction as to the stage of development.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, today it is again my duty to table 20 petitions signed by residents of the riding of Ottawa-Vanier in which petitioners wish to express their dissatisfaction with the government's proposal to put a 9 per cent tax on goods and services.
Your petitioners point out that the Conservative Government has saddled Canadian taxpayers with at least 31 taxes or tax increases since it came to power in 1984; that it raised the existing sales tax on manufactured goods from 9 per cent in 1984 to 13.5 per cent; that it now wants to introduce a 9 per cent sales tax on goods and services, a tax that will be hidden and will apply to practically everything; that this new universal tax on goods and services will cause financial problems for
Routine Proceedings
small business; that it will expose Canadians to a very real possibility of higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the goods and services tax.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition on behalf of a number of petitioners from Saskatoon and area who point out that the proposed goods and services tax is an unfair form of taxation because it is so regressive. The petitioners call upon the government to put in a real tax reform and reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first is signed by 352 residents primarily of the city of Thunder Bay and adjoining area, and also from a number of areas in British Columbia, certified by the Clerk of Petitions, with regard to the future of VIA Rail.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to maintain the existing VIA network, upgrade VIA equipment and guarantee VIA sufficient support to carry out its mandate to provide passenger service.
I am sure, had these been signed after the transport committee tabled its report, the petitioners would agree with the recommendations in that report.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition signed by 257 residents in the city of Thunder Bay and adjoining areas regarding the proposed goods and services tax. They point out that the government is now trying to tax reading, haircuts, diapers, coffins and home heating fuels. They call upon Parliament to reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from 750 residents of my riding who live along the VIA Rail right of way. They call on Parliament

November 9, 1989
Routine Proceedings
to maintain the existing VIA network, upgrade VTA equipment, and guarantee VIA sufficient support to carry out its passenger service mandate.


Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of Canadians resident in Toronto, Hamilton, Stratford, Kitchener, Stoney Creek, Sudbury, London, St. Thomas, Etobicoke, Ingersol, Woodstock, Windsor, Oakville, Wheatly, Leamington, Wallenburg, and points west, asking that the government cancel its plans for cancelling VIA, modernize the equipment and build a high speed passenger train between Montreal and Windsor. As in duty, your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: [Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
I have the honour of presenting a petition signed by residents of Clyde River, pursuant to Standing Order 36, objecting to the proposed GST which was so eloquently defined by the member for Mississauga South as the "gouging and screwing" tax.


Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton - Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, 2,279 signatures of people calling for a shortening of the extradition process. This brings the amount that I have presented in the House to well over 10,000 with almost 100,000 signatures of people across Canada calling for a shortening of the extradition process.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here signed by 300 citizens of the great riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell from such magnificent communities as Wendover, Rockland, St. Paschal and other fine places in my riding. The petitioners are objecting to the GST, the grief and suffering tax which will be imposed on my constituents with the recent proposal of the Conservative government, and they are indicating that this GST is inappropriate.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to present a petition on behalf
of dairy producers in my riding who are quite alarmed by the fact that this government has been weak kneed at the GATT in presenting the views of Canadian dairy farmers.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and honour to present on behalf of several hundreds of people in British Columbia two groups of petitions. The petitioners ask the government and humbly pray and call upon Parliament to formulate and legislate a law to protect life from conception, a law which seeks to save the life of both mother and child, which I heartily endorse.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure today to present a petition, certified by the Clerk of Petitions to be correct, on behalf of Saskatchewan residents from Luseland, Strasbourg and Weybum, Saskatchewan. The petition protests the removal of oats from the marketing jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. It calls upon the government not to remove oats from the jurisdiction and to place oats and barley under the Canadian Wheat Board Act so that in future farmers and their organizations must be consulted before changes are made in the marketing of these products.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to rise and present five petitions signed by over 150 constituents of Winnipeg North. They feel that the proposed goods and services tax will truly impose great suffering and grief on them and that the tax will gouge and squeeze them. Hence, they pray that Parliament will reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour today to table a petition signed by many of my constituents. These people realize that there is a crisis in the Atlantic fishery, that the livelihood of tens of thousands of Atlantic fishermen and plant workers is in jeopardy and that the whole fishing industry is in grave danger.
These constituents call upon Parliament to request the government to extend its jurisdiction to the very edge of Canada's continental shelf so that Canada can protect
November 9, 1989

and regulate the fishing stocks so vital to the Atlantic area.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from over 250 constituents in Ottawa West and friends and colleagues whom they have also contacted. Most of these signatures were gathered at a public meeting in Ottawa West to oppose the goods and services tax. People are objecting to the impact on bowlers, students, music teachers, on reading and numerous other factors and ask the House to reject the goods and services tax.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present to this House three petitions, each of them dealing with the proposed goods and services tax. Of course, it will come as no surprise to anyone in this House that the petitioners are opposed to the proposed goods and services tax. They call upon Parliament to categorically and unequivocally reject any legislation which is brought forward for the purpose of implementing this gouge and scrape tax.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36.1 have a petition certified by the Clerk from residents of Bonavista, Fortune, Catalina, Little Catalina, Elliston, Newman's Cove, Amherst Cove, and Birchy Cove, all areas very close to my home town.
The 39 signatures on this petition represent a group of people who are very concerned with the government's proposal to withdraw its $2.9 billion contribution to the unemployment insurance fund, and in particular the transfer of the $8 million into training. While they are aware of what the government is attempting to do, and that it may well have application in larger areas of the country, it is nevertheless taking money essentially out of their pockets because they will not be able to receive the benefits of this money.
They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these cuts and try to come up with a better policy.
Routine Proceedings PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions I would like to present today from my beautiful riding of Nepean. Pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present yet another petition with no less than 600 signatures on it from people of my riding. They are very concerned over the possible imposition of the goods and services tax. These are people from all over Nepean who are part of our adult population, or from our business community. In fact, they are from all walks of life in the city.
These petitioners believe the implementation of the GST will cause serious and unfair hardship, place an onerous burden on business and is inflationary. These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the GST.


Beryl Gaffney: The second petition, Mr. Speaker, is from 134 petitioners in my riding and it is with regard to the old age security cut-backs in the federal budget. Whereas the senior citizens earning over $50,000 will have their old age pension taxed back, as a result, in 20 years a clawback of OAS will start at $28,000 and affect two million Canadians.
Therefore, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to abolish the clawback of old age security and reaffirm its commitment to universality.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, as the son of a former employee of the railroad who came to this country 40 years ago to help build the railroad, I take great pleasure in presenting to this House several petitions calling on the Government of Canada to come to its senses and not cancel passenger rail service in Canada.
The petitioners totally approximately 200.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition signed by several constituents in the riding of Kingston and the

November 9, 1989
Supply
Islands. Your petitioners are opposed to the goods and services tax and humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject a tax that is unjust and unfair.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present four more petitions in a lengthy series of earlier petitions on the subject of VIA Rail. The petitions are signed by many citizens of the community of Revelstoke, and also a number from Nakusp, British Columbia.
My friend, the member for York South-Weston presented a petition on the same subject a few moments ago, and he referred to his father. Revelstoke was the community he came to to work on the CPR a number of years ago.
These petitioners call upon Parliament to maintain VIA Rail, Canada's present national network, to upgrade VIA Rail with new equipment and to give VIA Rail a sufficient budget to maintain its national mandate for passenger service. These petitions come from a community that is at least three hours drive from the closest commercial airport and its roads are cut off by snow and avalanches more than any other community in Canada.


ORDER PAPER QUESTIONS
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 150 will be answered today.


Mr. Wappel: As of October 1, 1989, what number of Canadian residents (a) pay federal income tax (b) have paid federal income tax for twenty-five years or more?


Hon. Otto John Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: (a) Statistics on taxfilers are maintained by taxation year, the most recent year available being 1987. For the 1987 taxation year 13,026,180 Canadian residents paid federal income tax.
(b) No statistics are maintained on the number of Canadian residents who have paid federal income tax for twenty-five years or more.


Albert Glen Cooper: I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Tobin:
That this House approve the recommendation contained in the
Second Report of the Standing Committee on Transport, calling for
a moratorium in the Government's proposed cuts to VIA Rail.
Iain Francis Angus: Before the Minister contributes to the debate, there have been some discussions among the parties that following the speech by the Minister of Transport and the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden, there is agreement that although we will observe the normal rotation between parties, each party will use its time as it sees fit.
It is my understanding that the government will probably use the normal 20 minutes, plus a 10 minute question and answer period, and that the two opposition parties will split that time ten minutes-five minutes in their case. I would ask for unanimous consent to allow that to occur.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), on the same point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, in order to assist the Chair during the proceedings, I think Hon. Members should advise the Chair of their intentions before they start to speak. I hereby give notice that I will use ten minutes plus five minutes for questions and comments, so the Chair will not have to guess whether the 10 minutes are up or not. If it is 12, 13, or 14 minutes, it might be a
November 9, 1989

problem. So I think Hon. Members should say whether they intend to take 10 or 20 minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In that case, if Opposition Members use this system, they will have two in a row, which makes 30 minutes. I thank Hon. Members for their comments. Resuming debate. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard).


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the New Democratic Party for giving me the opportunity to speak immediately. Normally, the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden would speak first, but he graciously agreed to let me speak first.

Mr. Speaker, for five years the Government of Canada, the present government, has been trying to build a strong economy in this country that will be able to compete with what is becoming a very strong international economy among all trading nations. To succeed, it is imperative, in our view, that the economy continues to prosper in the years to come. I say imperative, not just desirable. The measures we introduced to control the deficit and reduce the national debt were designed with that goal in mind.
The government's commitment to reduce spending and control its finances obviously applies to all sectors, and especially, as far as I am concerned, to the transportation sector.
Mr. Speaker, it is also a fact that transport has always been and always will be an essential component of Canada's economic development. It is also quite clear that we will have to ensure that this network is efficient and that Canadians are able to use it efficiently. If we are to understand the initiatives and decisions being made in the transportation sector today, they must be seen in this perspective. We must consider the financial aspects while at the same time ensuring that we have a transportation network that reflects the deverstity of the country in which we live. The government's initiative are there-
Supply
fore designed with this perspective in mind, while at the same time we must consider that this transportation network must develop in circumstances that provide for a network that is reliable, efficient and profitable, thus giving Canadians a better chance of competing in an increasingly competitive world.
What we must not forget, in the course of today's debate, is that railway transportation is not the only transport mode in this country and is not even the type of transportation Canadians use the most. It is a more traditional mode which has been used for a number of reasons, and those reasons have been around for some time. In 1961, the McPherson Commission recommended abandoning rail passenger services. For 30 years there were a number of studies and attempts to resolve this matter. Once again, when we look at transportation in this country, there is as much air transportation as railway transportation. But there is also marine transport and the automobile which is being used more and more today, and when we talk about freight, trucks have become an essential component, and finally, we also have buses for passenger tranportation.
Mr. Speaker, one principle has always guided the government's actions, as it does now in the transportation sector, and that is; never invest more than we can afford, in other words, invest what we can in a transportation mode, especially one that is being used less and less and is costing us more and more. And we must remember that Canadian taxpayers are footing the bill!
Mr. Speaker, in 1988, and I have often quoted this figure but I would like to remind people: $641 million was spent to prop up VIA Rail, which means a cost of $100 per passenger, and between Jasper and Prince Rupert as much as $483 per passenger. Mr. Speaker, this subsidy does not come out of the blue. It is paid for by all Canadians, although only 3 per cent of them travel by train.
Mr. Speaker, whether we admit it or not, whether we like it or not, whether we want to change it or not, we have to realize that Canadians have given more and more and will give more and more, unless the Royal Commission of inquiry proves the opposite. I am open to any recommendations, but today, Canadians have shown a preference for other modes of transportation.
The automobile is obviously the preferred type of transportation, with, to a lesser extent, air transport and

November 9, 1989
Supply
buses. Eighty five per cent of Canadians travel by car. People will say: The Minister could change that. Mr. Speaker, ministers do not create the trends. Ministers manage the trends. The Minister manages what Canadians want to use as a means of transportation. Contrary to what everybody has been saying, and I am not arguing just for the sake of arguing, VIA Rail is not improving. There has been no improvement in 1988 and 1989. The situation is getting worse, Mr. Speaker. In 1988, revenues went up 13 per cent but the government spent $68 million on subsidies. Mr. Speaker, this is not a fairy tale thought up by the minister. These are figures that cannot be challenged. These are the figures we have produced time and time again, and unfortunately, the report produced yesterday by the Transport Committee says: Figures can be interpreted in many different ways, and we are not sure about the figures that were provided. Not all figures provided by Transport Canada or VIA Rail have been systematically and affectively challenged.

Prompt action had to be taken to stop this drain on the public purse. The motion before the House today would seek to impose a moratorium, a moratorium which could cost the taxpayer any amount of money because there is no limit. It means it could be $500 million, it could be $1 billion; it could be more. We do not know because the committee does not recommend any time limit for the moratorium. As the Premier of Ontario and many others, including mayors of the cities, said this morning a moratorium would cost money. The bottom line is that the committee does not say where we will get the money. I would be interested if the committee had not only proposed a moratorium but stated where we would take the money as well. Almost everybody in this country admits that the deficit is too high, and we have to make cuts. My friends on the other side are totally opposed to the GST or any increase of tax. If you do not increase the tax you have to cut, and you have to cut where people are the least affected by the cuts. In other words, where just 3 per cent of Canadians are using the service.
We would have expected the committee to say, if it is against the tax: "We are for the cuts, but we don't want to cut VIA Rail, so we will go elsewhere." Where, Mr. Speaker? That is the question. Neither the mayors nor the premiers this morning, nor anybody on the other
side, said where we should cut. There is no miracle to get money for the deficit.
I can only assume that Canadians would be expected to pay the bill again. And I don't believe that this government could accept that. That is why I say I am sorry but I could not agree with any moratorium. We will not provide the millions of dollars needed to subsidize VIA Rail again.
I believe that the committee should have taken the opportunity in this report to look at the future of rail passenger transportation in the long run, not in the short term, on the verge of the premiers' conference. The committee's timing in terms of the report is interesting. It is very strange that the last witnesses appeared at noon, Mr. Speaker, Tuesday. Yesterday morning the report was ready. The timing is good. I expected the committee to give me a perspective of the future of transportation and on the way the government and the Canadian taxpayer could have a more affordable alternative to what we have today.
We hear references to Amtrak. Of course many other countries are making decisions concerning rail passenger services based on their own demographic and geographic reality. When we talk about Amtrak I am amazed that the report does not say that Amtrak has the ability to abandon any route when it wants. That is not the case in Canada, Mr. Speaker. When they use an example like Amtrak they should say also that in 1971 it cut 75 per cent of the network. We want to cut 40 per cent and we are accused of being unCanadian and not having in mind the spirit of Canada. I believe we must always be consistent. When we do something, we live with the consequences. I will give an example. We cannot have the tax system in the United States along with the services in Sweden. We would sometime have to consider using a system with all it represents.
The decision has been made in light of the fact that Canada is the second largest country in the world while, at the same time, we have a population of 25 million people. VIA service must be consistent with the reality of the country and the density of the Quebec-Windsor corridor. At the same time we have different needs. In Saskatchewan it is not like Toronto or Montreal and we have to provide service in the best way that we can afford. At the same time the mayors of cities along the corridor say "We have 60 per cent of Canadians living here and we want all the services here". I believe the government has been wise in its decision that, in the perspective of the reality of Canada, it should share the
November 9, 1989

benefits everywhere. All Canadians are aware that we must reduce the burden of the debt. Canadians have been asked to tighten their belts, and VIA could not be an exception. Should we ask Canadians to do something and say that VIA is an exception? It is not viable. It is terribly expensive. Canadians do not use it. But we keep VIA Rail for $641 million, $800 million or $1 billion a year, it doesn't matter. We spend that money when we have other modes of transportation that need to be supported.
The government has distinguished itself during the past year through fiscal responsibility and judicious allocation of federal financial resources.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: After doubling the debt.


Benoît Bouchard: The member opposite should know that there are so many examples to take on this side of the House on the management of the country and its finances. The member should cry over the legacy that his party left to the country. Canadians have to pay today for errors made at the time the Liberals were in power. They never knew that when money is scarce it has to be spent in the best way, where it is most needed and where it is most likely to produce results.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues opposite and all my fellow citizens to look at the record, to judge the facts and accept them. Of course we have had hard decisions to make since 1984. Mr. Speaker, I have been a Minister in this Government for five years and every year, difficult decisions have had to be made in every department. We made them because we did not want the situation we inherited in 1984. It is not what I would have wanted to inherit, but it is what we got.
Mr. Speaker, about a year ago now, Canadians recognized the hard choices the Government made and the decisions it took. Today Canadians accept responsible financial management combined with sound economic policies that lead to economic growth. This morning at the opening of the First Ministers' Conference, the Prime Minister recalled that Canada's economic growth is one of the best in the world, especially in the last five
Supply
years. Of course we see the break in 1984 and we understand why.
Mr. Speaker, I tell Canadians, I tell my fellow citizens and my colleagues in this House that as responsible people, we do not have the right, even in transport, even with the difficult decisions that have to be made for VIA Rail, to leave a legacy for which Canadians would hold us responsible for not making decisions when the time came to make them.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the minister, as I always do. We do not see eye to eye on a number of things, and certainly on VIA Rail we do not see eye to eye.
I want to respond first to the minister's challenge when he says that opposition members have not said where we would cut. We have said where we would cut. We have said that if you lower interest rates you would save $1 billion a year on your deficit. A drop of 1 per cent would save a billion and a half dollars. We say drop it down. There are answers out there if you look for them.
I want to put to the minister a number of very specific questions arising out of the report of the committee. He answered in the House today that a moratorium was not acceptable to him. We regret that, but for now I accept that as his view and hopefully we will be able to convince the Prime Minister to intervene.
The other part of the recommendation was a change in the royal commission to specifically ask it to look at rail passenger service and to come up with an interim report that deals with things like a legislative mandate and future equipment requirements. My first question is whether the minister will agree to the second part of the committee's report, which are the changes to the royal commission.
The second question is this. Is the government going to bring in a bill to give VIA its legislative mandate? Now, the third question. Under the minister's predecessor, Trans-Consortium-which was Bombardier and UTDC Cancar-came up with a design for transcontinental passenger equipment, a price that was acceptable to VIA and to the companies, but was eventually turned down by cabinet. Trans-Consortium then offered to finance the construction of those cars and rent them to VIA Rail. I want to ask the minister in all seriousness

Supply
whether he would now consider going back to TransConsortium and saying yes, that the government will look at that kind of private sector involvement.
The final question, again coming from the report and the testimony, was the whole matter of the protected routes. We can quibble on the figures, whether it is $45 million or $50 million or whatever, but in terms of a principle, would the minister agree with the thought that came through the committee that the funding for the public good should not be part of his budget but should come from general government financing so that it does not distort VIA's books? I would like some very serious answers to those four serious questions.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think the questions are good and I will try to do my best to give what I consider my best answers.
I want to say, first, that I think it is a big temptation to believe that we can just with our hands make a decision to reduce the interest rate. I know something though.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Did it before?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the member from Regina-Lumsden was there at the time when Canadians were so upset about the rate of inflation, 12 and 13 per cent. Canadians would perhaps have agreed at the time to have a 12 per cent interest rate but with a 4 or 5 per cent inflation rate, as we have today. I believe the policy of the Minister of Finance is good at a time when he can control the inflation. I do not believe he could serve Canadians better, if the inflation rate would be what it was at the time.
The member asks about a change to a royal commission. I think my friend will understand that the three other questions depend upon the answer we give to the first. You will understand what I mean. The mandate of the royal commission has been determined in a way that we could answer the basic question of integration of transportation modes for the year 2000. If there is any proposal in the interim report in one and a half years at that time it will be possible to determine whether we can immediately answer a few questions.
The mandate of the commission has not been tailored with regard to VIA Rail. It has been determined with
regard to all transportation modes and it does not intend to answer, specifically, the problem of VIA Rail.
On the question of VIA Rail, I have been told by the Mayor of Quebec that it was euthanasia because we were killing the system.
I am not that pessimistic. We need, though, to have major surgery. We are keeping the system alive. The Premier of Ontario said this morning that his government is working with the province of Quebec to determine new technology, high speed trains, and we are fully supportive of that initiative. But first we have to look at the commission in the broad perspective of all transportation. For that reason we could not reduce the mandate to just VIA Rail and look at a practical problem which perhaps will be answered after the commission makes its report. I am one of those who believe that VIA Rail deserves to have its own legislation to be able to manage differently than it does so far. We have asked a commission to determine the future of transportation. In a year and a half we will see exactly what direction it believes we should take with all transportation, including VIA Rail. At the time, I suppose, if the commission considers the viability of VIA Rail and it makes a proposal on the legislation we will be able to determine the legislation, which corresponds to the new reality. With the very heavy agenda that we have, the legislation will not be ready before a year an a half anyhow. In the meantime, I believe we could perhaps miss out on the competence of the commission.
The two last questions refer to the question of new cars. Even if we want to go to the Consolidated Fund or the Department of Finance and so on, management of the deficit is in the way. If you take $100 million, it will be the same money that I would need for a moratorium. I mean that we would need to pay for that.
You ask why not give the private sector the capacity to lease. Once again I refer to the commission. If it makes a recommendation of this kind, we will consider the proposal as I believe it should be done. It is the same for the protected routes. First, for those remote routes, my friend knows that I want to review them. We give the same example of Jasper-Prince Rupert which costs $483 for one ticket. I wonder if there isn't a cheaper mode of transportation. Sometimes we wonder if it wouldn't be cheaper to use a helicopter, because at $483 a ticket I
November 9, 1989

believe it couldn't be more expensive. That is why we want to review. We have already started to review to see if we couldn't truncate a few of these routes. It is something that we are looking at.
In conclusion, I know there are problems that my friend honestly considers. I do not question the honesty and the fairness of members on the other side. We must keep in mind that we are very tied in terms of the operation with the deficit that we have and our resources in Transport Canada. It is a very tied operation in terms of what we can put into the system. If we put in $650 million or implant any of the proposals here with more money, it will be dramatic not only for Transport but for the deficit. I am looking forward to the day when we can give a message to Canadians in terms of deficits and cuts and for six months maintain the same message.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question from the member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte this morning, the Minister of Transport indicated in the preamble that there was no time limit to the moratorium being requested. He seemed to imply that were there a definite time period he would be prepared to accept the motion.
Could there at least be a moratorium until such time as the commission has made its report and the Minister has had time to study its recommendations, in fairness to the process?
The minister spoke of major surgery. He will agree, as an analogy, that one would not first amputate the leg of a patient and then call a doctor and ask if the operation was indicated to begin with. That would be the wrong process.
I ask the minister whether he would be prepared to consider a moratorium at least until such time that the royal commission appointed by the government has had an opportunity to do its study, make its report and he has had the time to go over its recommendations?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, what I meant during Question Period is, of course, that I do not intend to accept any moratorium. It is a basic question. It is a question of resources. After January 15, the cost will be there and I cannot afford it.
Supply
If I gave the perception that I would accept a moratorium or if I said there is no time limit to it, it was essentially and exclusively to determine the range of the costs. The hon. member mentioned waiting until the commission makes its report. That means about one and a half years, a minimum of 18 months, before the interim report. What would that represent, $200, $300 or $400 million dollars? It is in the range of that possibility. We do not have the money.
Once again when we talk about moratorium, we talk about money. We could say as the report states that we could give a different interpretation to the figures and so on. We can sustain what we have said. The figures we have are good and safe, but at the end of the day when you talk about a moratorium, it is always a question of money.
Every time I ask the question from which resources will we take the money the answer has to be we will cut elsewhere, say, the interest rate. I believe that we have to put in our minds that there is no possibility today with the resources that we have to avoid the decision that was made.
I ask my colleague, as I ask all Canadians, to understand that what we have to do is not easy. It is something which basically is a sacrifice that we have to make. But at the same time, I believe we are working on the future of transportation to be sure that we will be able to develop it.
We already have a national, affordable and a sustainable network but it could be more national, more sustainable, depending upon the decision made by the commission. We need the money and if we do not have the money two years from now, perhaps we would have to cut all services, which is obviously not what I want.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I know that the minister did not take up all his time. I wonder, with the consent of the House, if I might be permitted to ask him one brief question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I would like to ask the minister about a matter that I know he is aware of because it was raised in a meeting between himself and the Minister of Transport of Manitoba. That has to do with service to remote cottage communities between Winnipeg and Farlane, Ontario. In the minister's announcement he included a

November 9, 1989
Supply
commitment to preserve service to remote areas. Presumably, remote areas mean places which are not serviced by any other mode of transportation.
As I think the minister is aware, there are communities between Winnipeg and Farlane, Ontario, which can only be reached by rail and they are served, according to the minister's plans now, only by the Transcontinental service which will run over the Winnipeg-Capreol line. Not only does this train leave at times which are completely out of whack with times when people may want to go to their cottages, but there is also some question as to whether or not you would want a Transcontinental train to be stopping at all of those places anyway. I understand from a media article that the minister was going to give this problem his attention to see if some special arrangement could be made, at least in the summertime, to get these people to their camps and back to where they have had investments over many generations.
I would like to know from the minister where that process is at. Has he had a chance to look at it? What is the state of his thinking on that matter?


Benoît Bouchard: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, as I said to Mr. Driedger from Manitoba, that matter is still under review. It is a veiy particular case. People use that train to go to their cottages for the weekend. It is really particular because it is not in the spirit of what we call remote services. I agreed at the request of the minister to take a look at it. It was still under review at the department, either last week or the week before. I have not yet received the report.
Once again, it is very particular. It is basically a leisure service because people are going to their cottages. On that basis, it has to be seen in the perspective of all Canada. If three, four, five or six other services might have to be cut, it has to be seen in that perspective. The answer will come up later, because it has not as yet been treated by the department.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of the House for 21 years and for 21 consecutive years a member of the transport committee. The minister is the twelfth or thirteenth minister during those years. Throughout the whole time I have been
surrounded by amateurs and ignorance when it comes to transportation. With my years on the railway, together with those of my father and grandfather, and the 21 years with the transport committee, I think I know a bit about it. I do not pose as an expert, by any means.
The minister referred early in his remarks to Amtrak and how it cut so many routes in 1971. Amtrak cut all the duplicate routes, two or three lines running to New York, to Chicago, from Chicago to Detroit, from Chicago to Los Angeles or Seattle, down to one line. That is exactly what was done by VIA in 1977-78. There was no use having two parallel railway lines, duplicating a service. It made transportation sense economically and it ended duplication. It also saved a lot of money. The specious comparison put forward by the minister does not stand up. It never has.
The cuts in VIA Rail according to the minister and the Minister of Finance will save money. Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat. The cuts in VIA Rail in 1981-82 cost the government more and cost VIA Rail more than what the savings were, and that was only a 21 per cent cut. It is not that they just do not understand; they do not care.
There is the travesty of the Department of Finance doing the studies for reference levels of subsidy for VIA Rail. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker: Where in hell was the minister of Transport? We have asked. In fact questions went on the order paper about those studies, but they were not done by transport; they were done by the Department of Finance.
When it came to environment there were two farces. Who did the study for the Department of the Environment? The Department of Transport. My question is: Where was the Minister of the Environment? Let us look at that so-called environmental study. It dignifies it to use the word "study". It is not a study; it is another farce. It does not hold any water at all for anyone, expert or non-expert on environmental impact.
The government and its adherents for all these years have advocated sound business practices. One sound practice in business is that if you go into business or you are continue in business you have to operate not only efficiently and with high productivity. You also have to operate with the latest and most modem equipment.
November 9, 1989

If a private corporation had gone to a banker anywhere in the world and asked for a loan to operate a passenger railroad with equipment from 30 to 50 years old needing repair and refurbishing, with no prospect of making a nickel or even breaking even, he would have been laughed out of the bank or even out of town.
It has been pointed out not only by myself but by independent experts that had new equipment been put on stream starting in 1977-78, equipment with a life span of 30 to 50 years, the savings in the operation and maintenance costs would have paid for the cost of the new equipment in about seven years. That is a sound business practice.
What did the previous government and this government do? They refused to order the equipment. They did finally smarten up and realized they had to get some new locomotives or the thing would have ground to a halt. If you want to reduce the subsidy to VIA Rail annually by tens of millions of dollars, then the placement of the new rolling stock is fundamental. You cannot do it without the new rolling stock.
The Trans-Orient, a consortium of builders of railway rolling stocks, has the best expertise in the world, or as good as any in the world; let's put it that way. Would you believe, Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has put up the guaranteed financing for new rolling stock built by Bombardier for Amtrak? The Minister of Transport and his department and the Minister of Finance and his department have yet to answer that question. How come we can provide the financing for new rolling stock as the Government of Canada on behalf of the taxpayers for a passenger railway in the United States, but we cannot do it for our own passenger railway in Canada? It boggles the mind.
I repeat for the umpteenth time that you must have in a rail passenger corporation people who know something about transportation economics and transportation marketing. I feel extremely sorry for most, not all, of the management at VIA Rail since 1977. They have not been allowed to function. They have not been allowed to do what they knew had to be done to make VIA Rail succeed.
VIA Rail management in the past 12 years has been required to function within the framework of government policy. Government policy has annually restricted VIA Rail. I coined the phrase in 1978 "VIA Rail, designed to fail". This government and the previous one
Supply
had no intention as a matter of policy to make it possible for VIA Rail to succeed.
I find most distressing all the talk and whatnot that has gone on in this place and outside this place about parliamentary reform, the independence of committees, and the government paying attention to what the House of Commons and the members thereof have to say.
It is obvious in this instance and in other ones-and it will be in future ones-that the government makes a decision and then after the fact a parliamentary committee using its independence decides to hold hearings on the matter. The government after the fact appoints a royal commission. If you have ever played poker or any other kind of gambling games, the one thing you are bound to lose at, a lead pipe cinch, is to play against a stacked deck. This deck has been stacked since 1977.
The minister asks: "Where are you going to get the money?" My colleague said that if you lower the interest rate 1 per cent the government would save $1.5 billion. All the financial experts I have listened to and read and heard over the last year or two said that the most sensible spread between Canadian and U.S. interest rates was a maximum of 3 per cent. We are now up to a 4.5 per cent or 5 per cent spread between the interest rates here and in the U.S.
I understand and appreciate the historical reasoning that having our interest rates higher than theirs will attract investment and all that. The spread has now reached the point of increasing our deficit and preventing the government of the day and Parliament from acting the way they should on things such as a national rail passenger system.
The committee was, to put it nicely, veiy diplomatic, very positive. We could have tried to say things that were a lot tougher and meaner. We heard from over 30 groups and individuals, and something over 100 people were part of those groups. Of all the individuals, groups and whatnot we heard from three agreed with the government proposal. One was the Minister of Transport. Well that is understandable, to put it nicely. The other was Mr. Lawless, that coyote in the chicken coop who is running both CN and VIA Rail. The third was the

November 9, 1989
Supply
representative of the bus companies. I guess you could say that that figures.
I noticed with great interest that the witnesses were from right across the sociological and political spectrum of Canada. Trade unionists, free enterprisers, chambers of commerce, mayors of cities and towns of different political stripes were unanimous in opposing what the government is proposing.
Most interesting, since tourism is such a valuable industry in this country, was a witness we heard yesterday who is a tour group operator. He is only a small operator. There are dozens of others who do much more business, who book space on VIA Rail. He cannot do it any more. Just that one little firm did something like $4 million to $5 million worth of business last year and considers VIA Rail a business partner.
When the vice-president of Amtrak was in front of the committee he did not try to tell us what we should do. He just told us some facts and gave us some information. This is to give you a good illustration of what has been done to VIA Rail and the taxpayers since 1977. He told us the Amtrak trains that run from the U.S. border to Montreal, from the U.S. border to Toronto, have to pay Canadian railroads three times as much as they pay American railroads to run their passenger trains over their tracks. If that does not tell my hon. friends opposite something, I do not know what else could.
There is another item. VIA Rail had to part with $14.5 million last year in provincial and federal diesel fuel taxes. Name me another country where a transportation company that has to build, maintain and operate its own right-of-way has to pay fuel taxes which are nothing more than a subsidy to road users. There was $14.5 million in wasted taxpayers' money. It is unfair treatment of VIA Rail, CN and CR Why in God's name are they paying diesel fuel taxes for their diesel locomotives? If they could run them down the Trans-Canada Highway they would be quite happy to pay those diesel fuel taxes. It is another example of one of the cards in the stacked deck on VIA Rail.
The committee worked very hard and very sincerely and, as my hon. friend over there will agree, we worked many hours. We heard all the witnesses and whether we agreed or disagreed with a witness, we were impressed. We worked hard at coming up with a report that
hopefully all of us but certainly most of us from all sides of the House could support.
That brings me to my closing remarks. If parliamentary reform means anything at all, then the government can do no less than act upon our recommendations. We had a unanimous report. This is only the second time, by the way, this has happened in my 21 years here, a unanimous report of the transport committee.
After our trip to Europe we made a unanimous report which the government has ignored every since. Why did we bother? Why did we waste taxpayers' money and the expense to all those witnesses out of their own pockets if the government was going to ignore the committee's report?
Similarly, the royal commission is an academic exercise. It is already a fait accompli, what this government intends to do about transportation. Members of the government have jet engines for brains. Everything the government has done at airports, ports, the seaway and Via Rail has been backward, the opposite to what it should have been doing.
Is it not interesting that VIA Rail's subsidies are cut three times a week? Well, gee whiz, 12 so-called selfsustaining airports lost $60 million last year and have debts of over $800 million. Why do we not make those 10 airports operate only three days a week?
Surely what we recommended to Parliament and to this House makes sense and provides a chance for VIA Rail to succeed, instead of the deliberate activity of this government to have it fail.


Mr. Langlois:: Madam Speaker, I listened very closely to the remarks of my colleague from the riding of Regina-Lumsden (Mr. Benjamin), and I agree that he has a lot of experience and long years of service, particularly with the transport committee.
Still I should like to point out to him that, when he referred to the tour group operator or to the firm which booked space on VIA Rail, the figures he used may have sounded impressive because he was talking in terms of millions of dollars.
Perhaps I might remind him that the tour operator told the committee he had booked 4,000 seats on VIA Rail
November 9, 1989

over the past five years. This works out to 400 seats a year, a far cry from the figures quoted by my colleague.

I would like to ask my colleague about his experience after many years spent working on the rails and sitting on committees and commissions regarding passenger rail transport in Canada, namely, VIA Rail.
Since 1977, $5 billion of taxpayers' money has been put into VIA Rail, out of which $1 billion was for capital expenditures. In spite of that support provided by the taxpayers of Canada, the number of passengers using VIA Rail has decreased between the years 1980 and 1988. Last year, VIA rail transported fewer people than it did in 1980, in spite of the fact that $5 billion of Canadian taxpayers' money has been put into VIA rail. I would like my hon. colleague to comment on that situation and to give me his views.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, to my good friend I want to say that I used the tour operator example. My friend was there to hear that witness. He said that he was about the smallest operator. He also spoke about the dozens of others who do several times more business than he does, with blocks of seats, berths, compartments, bedrooms and so forth on VIA Rail. This is just one small example, the smallest one. You add them all together and you have tens of millions of dollars of tourism business, both direct and indirect, which involves VIA Rail.
On the matter of the $5 billion that has been put into VIA Rail, I do not like people who say "I told you so". I said to the Minister of Transport in 1978, the late unlamented Otto Lang, and every one since then that they should start off with the required investment of $1 billion in capital expenditure for 50 new locomotives and the station property.
You should have seen how the CPR rooked VIA Rail. It tried to get $15 million for the station property in Regina. We finally got it down to $3 million, although it is only worth $1.5 million.
That is the sort of thing that went on. VIA Rail had no choice. Some of that $1 billion was overexpenditure on real estate and station properties. On capital expenditures, most of the $1 billion went into refurbishing old equipment, and that is throwing good money after bad.
Supply
Some of those cars should have been put on the scrap heap the day VIA Rail began.
To illustrate further to my hon. friend about the victimization of VIA Rail, it had to pay over $77 million to CP and CN for that old equipment that was not fit to operate. The taxpayers got stuck. Both CP and CN had amortized that equipment off their books years before that. It was gravy. Before VIA Rail sold its first ticket, before its first train left the station, VIA Rail started with $100 million in the hole.
What a way to run a railroad. You guys do not know how to run one, never have, and at the rate you are going, you never will.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, this may be the last chance for this government to demonstrate that it has any respect left for representative democracy and the people of Canada.
You will recall that when the previous government cut a number of VIA routes in 1981 many of the people who now occupy the Treasury benches had fits of apoplexy. I admit that it was not the most glorious act of the previous administration. In fact it was a disaster and a significant contribution to the defeat of that government. I include my own defeat in that as well, but at least I learned something from it. It seems that there must be some kind of elixir in the exercise of power that dulls both perception and memory.
Let us go back a little bit. I was the chairman of the transport committee at the time, and the Deputy Prime Minister was the critic. He was supremely unhappy with the committee hearings. He was particularly incensed that the government would not give the committee a reference to travel and hold public hearings throughout the country. He had his colleagues organize their own travelling road show, and I think he was right. When the Conservatives came to power he restored many of the routes. They tooted their own horn about it, and that is okay too.
However, during the last election campaign Conservative members bragged about the restoration of VIA Rail, even while they had to be secretly planning the decimation of VIA. The Prime Minister took his band of merry men and women to the quiet of the Gatineau Hills and there he ordered the decimation of rail passenger service in Canada. However, there was at least one man who recognized the government's folly in decimating VIA, and he said: "no". That was VIA's president, Mr. Denis

November 9, 1989
Supply
de Belleval, and his tenure consequently was very short indeed.
Now we have the spectacle of the president of Canadian National, the company which could not make rail passenger service viable but which now makes a profit from VIA's operations, becoming the chief executive officer and the chief executioner of VTA. How cynical can a government be?
What about the minister, what has the minister done? Well, he and boredom, but with no conviction. He did not even make the decision. As far as I know it was made while he was ill, behind closed doors in the Prime Minister's office. The minister should have screwed up his courage and resigned rather then being used as a simple puppet by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.
His actions remind me of a line from The Rime of the Ancient Mariner "About, about in reel and rout, the death fires danced at night". The death fires are dancing about this government right now.
When is the Deputy Prime Minister going to stand up and be counted? Has he totally changed his mind in a few short years? Is he not afraid to lose what is left of his credibility that once was relatively high? I can understand his embarrassment, but where is his commitment and his conviction? If he had had any conviction he would have done something, he would have at least spoken out. He is just as cynical as the Prime Minister and Canadians will remember what kind of leadership he displayed.
This government's action is the worst blow ever to befall rail passenger service in the entire history of this country. Not only is the railroad being bludgeoned, but lives and livelihoods are callously being destroyed, and for what reason? There has to be something more than profitability to make a country work.
Tory ministers went about the country during the last election campaign talking two main themes; free trade and good financial management. Almost before the writs were returned the debt was out of control and VIA had to be scrapped. Are they making way for Amtrak to come in, pick up the slack and provide rail service in Canada? Wouldn't that be dandy. Is that why we have a new president of VIA who is obviously in a conflict of
interest? Talk about putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop, Madam Speaker. I cannot think of a better example.
The government systematically refused to listen to the people even though it knew there was a public outcry. The government never showed any indications that it wanted to listen to the people of Canada. The people of Canada, Madam Speaker, have spoken about their views on the cancellation of VIA Rail. All the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport were saying was that Canadians could not afford a rail passenger system. What a turnaround, what hypocrisy.
That is what this government was saying, while just about everybody in Canada was saying they needed and wanted an improved transportation system. And it is the people who pay the bills, it is not the government. The government has no money of its own, it has money only from the taxpayers of this country. That is what this government was saying while just about everybody else in western countries, even underdeveloped countries, were modernizing and improving their rail passenger service.
It should surprise no one that the government did not want to have public hearings. The government did not want public hearings because it did not want it known that it is completely out of touch with Canadian reality. But thanks to the determination of most of the members of the Standing Committee on Transport, the committee was able, against the wish to the government, to hold public hearings. Those hearings once again indicated that there is widespread opposition to the government's plan to decimate VIA Rail. And if it has any respect for the democratic process, if it has any respect for its constituency, if it has any respect for the people that it represents, the government must go along with the recommendations of this committee.
The government must declare immediately a moratorium on the announced service cuts to VTA. It must amend, by order in council, the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on a National Transportation System and charge it to examine rail passenger service and make an interim report as soon as possible. How cynical that a government scraps a service then appoints a commission to report three years hence what should have been done.
The government must direct the royal commission to undertake its interim report on rail passenger service to give particular attention to the following items; a legislative mandate, future equipment requirements, improved
November 9, 1989

productivity, overall environmental impacts, high speed rail in the corridor, and alternatives for the remote services. It must also know that what it is doing is wrong. The government must know that now it is the time to do the right thing. If this government cannot do that, all I can say, Madam Speaker, is "In God's name, go!"


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech of my colleague from Miramichi. Admittedly, Madam Speaker, he worked long years and has much experience, particularly in the transport sector.
What gets me down when I hear his remarks is the fact that my colleague has been a Member of this House for a good many years, and he was here in 1981 when the Minister of Transport urged the government to reduce federal grants to VIA Rail.
Since the administration at the time governed as if they were a weather cock, changing their mind depending on which way the wind was blowing, the Minister of Transport lost his nerve and continued to hand out annual grants to cover VIA Rail's operating costs.
My question to our colleague is this: when he was sitting on the government benches, what did his government do to give VIA Rail a fighting chance to get out of the red and provide good service?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Madam Speaker, first it gave VIA Rail its own management, which it does not have any more. It did not ask the president of CN or CP to run VIA Rail. It gave it a mandate. While it was not a legislative mandate, it did give it a mandate and it gave it funding to carry out the duties it was supposed to have carried out.
Now, I am not about to pretend that the government of that time handled the situation as I would have liked to have seen it, but it was a lot better than what we have today. It at least put a system in place that could in the future develop and prosper.
We now have a government and a minister that do not want even to talk publicly about VIA Rail any more. We heard the same thing from the minister today that we have heard over and over and over in Question Period. He has obviously been programmed. When he comes
Supply
into the House he slips a little disk in and it whirls round and round and round and we hear the same gobblede-gook every time the minister is asked a question. It does not make any difference what the question is, the answer is always the same and it is simply that we do not have any money. He talked today about the increase in the deficit and I remind the hon. member that it was his government that doubled the total debt in one term over all the debt accumulated since Confederation. That is the kind of mismanagement we are talking about now. While I was not entirely happy with what the previous government did vis-a-vis the setting up of VIA Rail, at least it gave it a mandate and gave it equipment.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Gibeau):: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Papineau-Saint-Michel (Mr. Ouellet) has the floor.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon and take part in this debate following my colleague the Hon. Member for Miramichi (Mr. Dionne). I am grateful to him for sharing with me the 20 minutes allocated to our Opposition Party.
I feel it is my duty to do so because this Tory Government's decision is extremely unfair, especially to the Province of Quebec. I just cannot understand how a Minister of Transport, representing a Quebec riding at that, can be so determined in eliminating completely the rail transport service, because as a matter of fact, the decisions made by this Toiy Government are such that they undermine the very survival of the rail passenger service. It is matter of choice.
Since the Department of Transport is responsible for air, sea, rail and to some extent truck and bus transport, it is clear that the minister must strive to defend, through his agreement with the provinces- Well, we would have hoped that the Minister of Transport would heed the representations originating from the Province of Quebec. It is not only the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport which is seeking a one-year moratorium. So do the Quebec Premier him-

November 9, 1989
Supply
self, Mayor Jean Dore of Montreal, Mayor M. Pelletier of Quebec City, and recently elected Mayor Mr-


An Hon. Member:: Mr. L'Allier.


André Ouellet: -thank you, Jean-Paul L'Allier who came this week to Ottawa with Mayor Pelletier to make representations calling for a moratorium. So does the Trois-Rivieres Mayor. So do the municipal councils of some 300 cities and towns in the Province of Quebec. So do about 20 Chambers of Commerce in the Province of Quebec and of course the representatives of the QFL-Rail Union Common Front, as well as all the railway employees who feel threatened by this Government's decision.
Finally, the Quebec Federation of Labour who was responsible for setting up the Rail Union Common Front recently issued a statement which read in part, and I quote: "The Tory Government's recent decision will result in over 10,000 jobs being lost in the Province of Quebec. The destruction of the rail industry in the Province of Quebec will be an economic and social disaster".
Just the same, the Minister claims that only some 600 jobs in Montreal are being jeopardized. What he forgot to mention is the fact that everywhere VIA Rail operates, not only direct jobs are involved but also indirect employment provided by small businesses whose livelihood partly depends on the presence of a passenger rail service throughout the area. The Conservative Government's willingness to give up one of the safest and most economical and environmentally sound means of transportation makes us wonder what its priorities are.
At every opportunity, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulro-ney) and the new Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) are trying to convince us that the environment has become a major priority for the Conservative Government, while the Minister of Transport is dismantling the safest and most environmentally sound means of transportation. It makes me wonder whether the right hand knows what the left hand is doing.
I am asking again the Government and especially the Minister of Transport who comes from Quebec to go back on their decision and agree to a one-year moratorium to allow the Quebec Government round table, the Royal Commission and, above all, the Standing Committee on Transport to hold hearings, carry out their work and make comprehensive recommendations on passenger transportation in Canada. It is obvious to me that rail service and air transport complement each other.
When the Minister said he would not go on subsidizing rail transportation, he should understand that in fact every single transportation mode in Canada is subsidized. Who pays for airport construction? Who pays for road construction? Who pays for seaport construction? Clearly, governments pay for those infrastructures. Therefore Governments, both federal and provincial, to a significant extent subsidize transportation modes in Canada. I say to the Minister of Transport: Railways are your responsibility, it is for you to pick-up the bill of maintaining rail passenger services, because in every country around the world passenger trains are subsidized by the state. Even in the case of the most modem and spacious ones as in France and Japan-the French Government and the Japanese Government subsidize passenger rail services in those countries. Quite naturally therefore the Canadian public expect subsidized passenger rail services. It is impossible to allow those companies to make a profit, not with a country as large and a population as scattered as we have in Canada.
Clearly, the Canadian Government must assume its responsibility and pay part of the bill for maintaining those passenger rail services. So much so that the people who will be penalized are the less privileged, often handicapped people who have no other means of travel than the train, because it is very difficult for a handicapped person to take the plane or even the bus. Also young people, who have the smallest income and want to see our country, discover it, especially and at a time when the First Ministers right now are discussing Canadian unity. Is there a better way to promote Canadian unity than to allow Canadians to travel from one point to another in Canada, and clearly the train is the least costly way of travelling, the easiest one for students. But the Government now intends to scuttle that plan that allowed during holiday periods young Canadians to travel from one area to another across Canada. And people in remote areas will be the most affected, they will be hurt most by this Government's cuts. Because in many remote areas of Canada, the most appropriate transportation service for those people is the train and nothing else.
November 9, 1989

I therefore conclude by saying this does not make sense. Finally, I hope the Canadian Government will listen to reason and accept this moratorium.


Mrs. Maheu:: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Papineau-Saint-Michel (Mr. Ouellet) for his remarks. You did make passing reference to remote regions. I know the government has^ a Member who is facing problems in Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine. I followed the committee proceedings on the future of VIA here in the House. I would like to hear your comments on the problems facing communities in the riding of Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine, for example.


André Ouellet: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, a number of our Conservative colleagues on the other side feel bad and are embarrassed over the decisions made by their government.
I have here a list of Chambers of Commerce, towns and communities that have signed a petition and passed a municipal council resolution urging the Conservative government to agree to this one-year moratorium. It has become obvious-Earlier I saw the Hon. Member for Manicouagan (Mr. Langlois) seek the floor to ask questions. The Chamber of Commerce of Chibougamau passed a resolution to that effect. The Chamber of Commerce of Sept-Iles passed a resolution to that effect. I see that my colleague from Kamouraska-Ri-viere-du-Loup (Mr. Plourde) is in the House. I remind him that the town of Riviere-du-Loup passed a resolution to that effect, as did the town of La Pocatiere.
In answer to your question, it has become obvious that the Hon. Member for Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Made-leine (Mr. Gray) would rather hide in the sand pit, because nearly all municipalities in his riding signed that petition and passed resolutions asking him to put pressure on the Minister of Transport about the moratorium. Unfortunately I have to admit that neither the Hon. Member for Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine nor the Hon. Member for Gaspe (Mr. Marin) or the Hon. Member for Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup seem to hold any sway over the Minister of Transport who struck a heavy blow against the province's economy when he made that decision which most Quebecers find totally unacceptable.
Supply


Mr. Plourde:: Mr. Speaker, I just cannot let my colleague say all sorts of things without responding. I can tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, I use the train which runs through Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup and I can also tell the other colleague opposite that there are no trains on the Magdalen Islands.
However, as for the moratorium that was requested, I say publicly that I am not for it. My colleague opposite who just spoke probably never worked in private enterprise. I was in private business for 28 years and I can tell you that when a private company has monetary problems, it has to make cuts. The Government of Canada, which is a very big business, must ensure that these cuts also apply to VIA Rail.
I would also like to tell this House, Mr. Speaker, that as far as eastern Quebec and the Gaspe peninsula are concerned, there are still three trains a week between Gaspe and Montreal and another three trains a week between Halifax and Montreal. That is six days out of seven. And I must tell you this: there was a train called the "Saint-Laurent" from Mont-Joli to Charny. I took that train sue months a year. I would like to see Hon. Members get on that train in Riviere-du-Loup at 9.30 in the morning and arrive in Charny to transfer to the Montreal train and be told that the train from Quebec City to Montreal had already passed and could not wait for them because they were late. From there, you had to take a bus, paid by VIA Rail, for the rest of the trip from Charny to Montreal. Sometimes in my experience, the bus driver did not even know where the station was in some places. So I think it is stretching the point to say that VIA Rail has now cut its services, when we know very well that eastern Quebec and the area I represent in this House will continue to be served six days a week. I hope that people will have got the message and will take the train. Although the Saint-Laurent from Mont-Joli to Charny has been abolished, 38,000 passengers took it in
1988.
And I would like to tell my colleague opposite that of those 38,000 passengers, 18,000 had railway passes and traveled for free. This train covered 19 per cent of its costs in 1988, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, again I tell you that eastern Quebec will be very well served with the VIA Rail schedule that will take effect in January and I ask train users to continue to

Supply
take the train, and I do mean to keep on taking the train if they do not want more cuts in the future.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I note the threat implied in the Hon. Member's remarks when he said that users had better continue taking the train, or else they might be faced with further cuts.
I suggest the Hon. Member has just let the cat out of the bag. Ever since this Tory Government came to power, we have witnessed its unrelenting effort to completely destroy, our rail passenger service.
What this Government has never recognized is that the Cabinet had made up its mind to completely eliminate rail passenger service in this country. The Government of Canada wants to get out of it.
Although the Hon. Member made a fine speech, he could not help but express the Tory philosophy when towards at the end of his speech, he warned that other cuts were in the offing! We know that other cuts are forthcoming. So does the Quebec Premier. So do the mayors of the most important Quebec municipalities which will be affected by them, and especially the railway workers who are urging us to act now in order to put a stop to this frightening eliminatation of rail passenger service in Canada.
In this endeavour, the government was guilty of much foot dragging. I need not remind you that as soon as the Tories came to power, the first thing they did was to impose a freeze on all the orders which VIA Rail had placed for the purchase of new engines and passenger cars. Then, they ordered a freeze on all planned repair shops which were to be build throughout Canada to make it possible for VIA Rail to carry out repairs on its own cars and engines without having to rely on the CNR and the CPR which were charging very high repair and maintenance costs.
Finally, this government appointed the Horner Commission at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars to submit a report which expressly recommended to the government to give VIA Rail a definite mandate and additional subsidies. This Tory government chose to ignore the Horner Report because it went against its own views and policies. Not only they do not want to give VIA Rail more money, but they simply want VIA Rail to suffocate and give up the ghost. If they try, they will have to fight us head on, Mr. Speaker!


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the debate this afternoon I have noted the suggestion that the standing committee held hearings against the wishes of the government. I can tell you that I have never heard anyone from the government say that the standing committee should not be holding hearings. The minister with whom I work has never once said that the standing committee should not hold hearings. It did this of its own free will because committees are masters of their own destiny.
It is unfortunate though that the standing committee in compiling its report and putting forth its suggestions was not a little more constructive in what it put forward. All it has said is that there should be a moratorium. Big deal, a moratorium. We are spending money like it is going out of style. We do not have the money to spend and that is what this program is all about.
Reducing subsidies to VIA Rail was a difficult decision to make and it was not done in haste. It strikes a balance between the transportation needs of our country and the fiscal realities which cannot be undermined. Fiscal responsibility is something that nobody on the opposition benches seems to want to address. They just keep saying: "Spend more money. Keep spending at the rate your are going and everything is going to be fine." It is not going to be fine.
The Canadian people have elected us to govern, and that is precisely what we are doing. I know it is going to be difficult for some people to adjust. Nevertheless, difficult decisions have to be made.
The new network will continue to link Canadians from Vancouver to Halifax. From listening to the members opposite you would think there is no more national transportation system. That is bunk. There will still be a train that you can get on in Halifax and you can get to Vancouver. It will maintain good connections between eastern and central Canada, and it will continue to serve the Quebec-Windsor corridor effectively, thereby providing Canadians from coast to coast with not only a national network but one that is affordable and sustainable. We will at last have something that we can build upon.
November 9, 1989

Much has been said about the state of rail transportation in other countries. I believe this bears some discussion. During the last few years all the western European nations have adopted plans to overhaul their existing rail passenger services. High-speed services operate in France, Britain and West Germany. In addition, France, Britain, The Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Italy and Switzerland are either building all new rail lines or upgrading existing lines to accommodate high-speed rail transportation service. It is anticipated that by 1995 a high-speed rail network should connect all major European cities. The investment in this high speed system will total $39 billion in 1995 and $92 billion in 2005-that is based on 1989 Canadian dollars-most of which will be funded by governments.
The Japanese inaugurated the world's first high speed train in the 1960s between Tokyo and Osaka. The route has been commercially successful and carries more than 130 million passengers a year. The Japanese have been working to extend the system the length of the country. The financial results of these extensions have been mixed as the costs of construction have been veiy high. Also, as population densities in the outlying areas are low and the distance between major centres quite long, the trains on these routes do not have the same high level of ridership as on earlier lines. For these two reasons, these lines require operating subsidies. While no specific information is available on the financing of high speed rail projects in Japan, the Japanese national railway is funded publicly.
In 1971 Amtrak took over 25 per cent of the rail passenger services in the U.S. All other passenger services were discontinued. By the early 1980s Amtrak had modernized its rail passenger services. The fleet is comprised of new locomotives or new modernized cars. A network of maintenance facilities has been completed and rail lines between New York and Washington have been upgraded for 200 kilometre an hour operation and between New York and Albany for 176 kilometre an hour operation. These improvements required a government investment of some $4 billion.
Opposition members seem to forget that Amtrak is a little different creature than what we have in VIA. Amtrak has the ability to abandon services, something which the opposition has been quite vocal in denying to VIA Rail. Amtrak can freely set its own price on tickets.
Supply
VIA Rail had to defend its pricing in front of the NTA when challenged by the bus systems. Amtrak receives direct subsidies from individual states that require uneconomic routes to be run. Yet provinces have been asked to do this in committee. I sat there and observed what was going on. Questions were put to the mayors of the corridor:, "Would you participate in the cost of putting on a moratorium for a year?" The answer came back an emphatic no.
I read in this morning's paper that one of our premiers was gracious enough to say that he was sure that all Canadians would be willing to subsidize VIA Rail to the tune of an extra $4 per person. Isn't that great? One of the premiers is volunteering that Canadians are willing to put out another $4. The Canadian people are telling us to try to get the deficit under control. All we hear is carping from the opposition benches "spend more money".
It also was said today that the standing committee was unanimous in this decision. The standing committee I have heard was not unanimous in its decision. It was a majority of the committee that voted, but it was not a unanimous decision.


Mr. MacDonald (Dartmouth):: The chairman voted for it. He sits on your side.


Ross Belsher: I was told this afternoon in a speech by the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden that it was unanimous. Now I hear otherwise. I do not know because it was an in camera meeting.
In national terms more than half of these countries that I have just cited have populations larger than Canada, and all have much higher population densities. Only the Quebec City-Windsor corridor matches the population densities of these other countries.
This government's decision is based on the economic, geographic and demographic realities of the country.
Let us look and see just what is happening between, say, Montreal and Toronto, or from Quebec City right through to Windsor. From Montreal to Quebec there is a cut-back of service. It is going from 48 round trips per week while maintaining 21. From Montreal to Ottawa it goes from 29 to 22. From Montreal to Toronto it goes from 43 down to 36. From Toronto to Ottawa it goes from 26 down to 19. From Toronto to Windsor there will be 30 trips per week. It will still have 30 trips a week.

November 9, 1989
Supply
From Toronto to Niagara Falls it goes from 21 down to 14.
Let us look at the ridership on some of these trains that we are cutting back. It is 39 per cent, 50 per cent, and 56 per cent is the highest occupancy rate of the routes that have been in service. In other words, 44 per cent of the seats are going empty on all of those routes I have just mentioned.
The combined public and private spending on transportation in Canada over the next 10 years can only be measured in hundreds of billions of dollars, and we are talking about total transportation. Therefore, an effective consideration of such an integrated system required the government to establish a forum that would permit all Canadians to be heard in a thoughtful, comprehensive and forward looking manner. That is why the Prime Minister has struck a royal commission. It was announced at the same time that the cuts were being made to VIA Rail. It is to inquire into and report on a national integrated inter-city passenger transportation system to meet the needs of Canada and Canadians well into the future.
The size and importance of our transportation system cannot be overstated. Its future development must lead to a system which will meet the challenges of the 21st century, not just the 20th century. This royal commission will be asked to inquire into and recommend solutions on the role of a national, integrated inter-city passenger transportation system and its relationship to the entire transportation system; the structure of a suitable, multimodal transportation system demonstrating the linkages and the potential for and constraints on achieving a national transportation system and, where appropriate, financial arrangements to achieve such a system, taking into account the jurisdiction of all levels of government and the role of the private sector. The commission will look ahead into the 21st century to advise governments on the needs of Canadians and on the relationship between the modes of transport of the future.
This royal commission through its wide consultation and broad mandate is expected to provide a clear action
plan that will ensure that the transportation links among Canada's regions are maintained and improved.
In making this announcement the Prime Minister stressed the importance of taking into account the wide range of interests of Canadians and the respective roles of all levels of government and the private sector in the provisions of inter-city services. Fie also emphasized the necessity to balance Canada's transportation needs with the government's policy of environmentally sustainable economic development.
This royal commission will examine Canada's unique social and democratic trends and look ahead to the ways the transportation system must respond to meet the competing needs and demands of users, operators, employees and other interested parties. The commission is expected to provide Canadians with a blueprint for a comprehensive, co-ordinated passenger system to take us well into the 21st century.


Mr. Nault:: Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions to put to the hon. member. They relate to the fact that if you take a look at Revenue Canada's own figures you see that there has been a large drop in the amount of dollars in the last five years in transfer of payments to the provinces and other governments. By the statement he just made it is evident why. It is because he feels that the deficit is out of control. Furthermore, because the deficit is out of control the tax burden should be shifted to other governments to let them worry about it.
I have one question. Is he saying to we members opposite that the federal government will no longer give a high priority to the regions of Canada or where you will live. Is he saying that in essence if the municipalities and the provinces cannot look after places such as those in northwestern Ontario, where it was decided to remove The Canadian which ran to the major centres, and if they cannot afford to do that then it is too bad, they just happen to live there and that's it, that's the way it works.
The government seems to be transferring its problems. We on this side are not saying that there are no difficulties. We realize there are many difficulties. When I became interested in running for federal politics one of the reasons was because I believed in all of Canada, as well as the federal importance and the importance of the government to keep the regions and all of Canada as

one. That is the reason why I am a little disturbed to hear the Prime Minister saying: "Well, if the other governments do not want to take part in a national railway system, then too bad, we will not have one".
Second, the member gave us some interesting statistics. The main reason that he gave those statistics was to show that some lines are not being used as much as they should be used. There is one in particular I want to ask him about, that is The Canadian. It was told to me not too long ago that by 1993 VIA with its present statistics would be running The Canadian at full capacity. What I heard from the constituents of Kenora-Rainy River this summer was that The Canadian was full, you could not get a ticket on it. Again, in essence they were right. You could not get on there. In the summer months it was running at a capacity of 96 per cent. It was full, you could not get a ticket. You could not go to Sudbury. You could not go to Winnipeg on that particular train. Lo and behold The Canadian is now gone.
I ask the member if he can explain to me based on those figures the fact that VIA told us that the reason why they were not putting more cars on that train to make it more viable-and it was only running 11-car trains-was that there were no more cars available to put on that train. I wonder why the member would not be interested in making a line that is considered to be one of the best in the country more viable by putting more cars on it.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his questions. I can assure the hon. member that this government in terms of regional disparities and looking after the regions has spent more money during this past four or five years than the previous government ever did. We believe there is a role to be played by the federal government in trying to ensure that the regions are not handicapped. He mentions the one line, The Canadian, which runs from Toronto to Winnipeg, to Calgary, and on to Vancouver, as being cut out. Yes, there have been some very difficult decisions made in what had to be cut.
The minister gave instructions to VIA management to reduce spending to $250 million per year by way of government subsidy in four years' time. That is down from the level of $641 million. There have been some very difficult decisions made. We must remember that in terms of the places that were cut out along the way there are alternate means of getting around. The occupancy
Supply
rate over the whole line was considered, I think, at the 70 per cent rate. There could be times of the year-I think he made reference to 90 per cent-when it could be higher, but the fact is that VIA Rail has had to be shrunk in total size. That is what this exercise has been about.
We had to make sure that the largest number of people could be accommodated, that the largest population base would still be serviced. Also, we had to ensure that the corridor from Quebec City through to Windsor would also have the bulk of its services retained, which has happened. Faced with the financial restraints that have been given to VIA management, these are the recommendations that have come back to us. The government, with whatever alternatives were given to it, has decided to carry them out.
I would hope to see a successful conclusion to some of the ideas that have been coming out of the travel agencies which would like to invest, to put in something similar to the Orient Express that would run from Toronto through to Vancouver, through our scenic Rocky Mountains. That would still be a way of travelling for the people who want to take an excursion, or a holiday, something that is entirely different, something which allows them to see something of the grandeur of our great country.


Ronald MacDonald: I am pleased to be able to ask a few questions of the parliamentary secretary concerning these cuts.
Coming from Atlantic Canada, I can tell you-and I am sure some of your colleagues on your side of the House have already done this-that the people of Atlantic Canada feel very much betrayed by the government's inability to keep up with its own rhetoric about holding on to the dream of a national rail transportation system.
A few years back, we had the then Deputy Prime Minister telling us that the government-the Tory party-was committed to building a viable national network, revitalizing the train service. We had recently, I think in the spring, the National Transportation Agency going around the country, holding public hearings chaired by an individual who spent many days in this house, the former Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Nielsen, the chairman of the NTA.

November 9, 1989
Supply
One of the disturbing things for people in Atlantic Canada is that once the cuts were announced, there did not seem to be a great deal of rationalization as to why so many cuts took place in Atlantic Canada. Those who are cynical would believe that it is perhaps because Atlantic Canada sent more Liberals to this place than they sent members on your side of the House. Surely to goodness the people of Atlantic Canada deserve a little bit better than lip service from this government.
What the government has done in essence is to tell people in Atlantic Canada repeatedly that we either use the train service or we lose it. The people living in Atlantic Canada did use the train system. The train that goes from Truro to Halifax-and I hope you have the statistics there-was sold out most days. There were many senior citizens, many students, and many individuals who took the train from the industrial Cape Breton area up through the northeast of Nova Scotia to get medical services in Halifax. Many of them were seniors, and many of them are on fixed incomes. These people could not afford to take the plane or could not take the bus because it was too uncomfortable or inconvenient.
Those people rode the rails. They sat in uncomfortable, outdated rail cars. Many times it took eight hours instead of four hours if they were travelling by car to get there. At the same point in time the government came in after telling them to use it or lose it and cancelled the routes. I would like to know the rationale for that.
In Atlantic Canada we have had some of the highest ridership rates anywhere in the country. People in Atlantic Canada use the train system. It is a very necessary part of our transportation infrastructure down there in a multimodal transportation system. That is the first question.
The other question that I want to ask deals specifically with the Halifax maintenance centre. The leaks and purported leaks and reports in the media prior to the cuts being announced in this place indicated that the Halifax maintenance centre was going to be one of the places that was going to be chopped in these cuts. Indeed, at the press conference on the day that the cuts were announced, Mr. Lawless responded to the first question from a member of the press from Halifax. This
was the first question he was asked, so he was not befuddled with other questions and facts at that point.
The first question was: "What is the future of the Halifax maintenance centre?" Immediately Mr. Lawless came back and indicated that the Halifax maintenance centre would be redundant, it would be closed, there would be no work. In the House later that day, the minister responsible and I believe the Prime Minister as well said that was not the case. I have sought assurances since that point in time, and have not been able to get them, that the Halifax maintenance centre will be open for the life of the business plan which is five years, and that there will not be substantial lay-offs six, eight or ten months down the road. I believe that there was a staff member of the minister's office who indicated that that would be the case.
I would like an assurance from the parliamentary secretary that the Halifax maintenance centre is not going to be a political football in the VIA cuts, that the Halifax maintenance centre will remain open, as I have been told by a member of the minister's staff, after the life span of this particular five year plan and that we are not going to face death by slow torture in that particular sector of the rail industry in Atlantic Canada, in Halifax-Dartmouth. We do not want to end up sue or eight months down the road with instead of 130 workers maybe 100 workers, and then six months after that with 50 workers and eventually shut down. I hope he can give me the answer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I hope he can do it
in a very short time, too.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. friend opposite for his questions. With respect to the services that he has mentioned that have been discontinued, I have the figures before me. I think they touch on some of the routes that he is talking about.
From Halifax to Sydney, there was 37 per cent occupancy; from Halifax to Port Hawkesbury, 34 per cent; Halifax to Yarmouth, 26 per cent; Halifax to Moncton- Saint John, 31 per cent. Those are the occupancy rates. In other words, well over half the seats were empty.
We must not forget that VIA Rail was created with, I think it was, $1 back in 1977. It was never given a legislative mandate to work under. It is still struggling under that situation. We have not corrected that deficiency that was created back in 1977, but we are bound
November 9, 1989

and determined that we are going to have a national transportation system.
The member also asked me about the Halifax maintenance yard. I can only reiterate what the minister said in reply to either his question or one of the members opposite who asked about that. The Halifax maintenance centre will stay.
If he were to come out to Vancouver or out to British Columbia where they were used to having the two trains, the Supercontinental and The Canadian, go through he would see they are now down to three trains per week. When you look at the Halifax to Montreal route, you see it still has six trains per week. It still has them on both lines, the north and the south line.
I think the Atlantic has been well served in that respect with the connections to central Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Comments are now terminated. I have three more speakers before four o'clock. I would recognize the hon. member for Hillsborough. Then I will recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan. I will wind up with the hon. member for St. Boniface.


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Dartmouth has certainly put forward the concerns of Atlantic Canada. With the exception that I would like to speak on this motion, there would not be much need of me going any further.
I rise today, Mr. Speaker, in support of the motion put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbes-Baie Verte. The motion calls for this House to approve the recommendations contained in the second report of the Standing Committee on Transport. Specifically the standing committee calls for a moratorium on the government's proposed cuts to VIA Rail.
It is a well-known fact that the drastic cuts to our national rail system will impact on every individual across Canada. The government states that it can no longer afford to maintain a rail service that only 3 per cent of Canadians use. What Canadians are not told is that this figure includes the regions where VIA does not operate. If we use these measures then only 6 per cent of Canadians ride buses and only 6 per cent use airplanes.
Supply
We listened to statements by the Minister of Transport like: "We have to consider that Canadians seem to stick to roads and air". What he does not say is that trains are being rediscovered in North America. Ridership increased on VIA by 10 per cent system-wide last year and in the first five months of this year showed a further increase.
According to Andrew Roman, the renowned author of a study in air deregulation, "Air fares will increase 30 per cent in the next year or two. There are going to be more people returning to passenger rail, only to find that none exists".
The minister has also stated: "Canada has to deal first of all with those modes of transportation which have to be considered as the future of transportation in Canada".
Mr. Kenneth Hare, chairman of the Climate Planning Board, cautions: "Transport policy has a profound effect on environmental issues-Getting cars and trucks off the road is a major environmental objective". He goes on to state that he personally regarded the government's plan of reducing train service as a serious mistake from an environmental point of view. I believe it is time that this government provided some far-sighted leadership by encouraging the use of an environmentally sound transportation alternative.
Thus, the standing committee's recommendation that calls upon the government to direct the royal commission to give particular attention to among other other issues over-all environmental impacts.
The VIA cuts will impact on eveiy passenger in this country, especially the handicapped, those of lower income and those living in rural areas with poor highway systems. The Atlantic region will once again bear more than its share of the burden. Atlantic Canada will lose 68 of its 80 runs. That amounts to 85 per cent of all Atlantic train service.
My province of Prince Edward Island has been without train service for years. Our only link to the mainland passenger train service was a bus system which this government has to no one's surprise eliminated. Islanders do not have access to what the minister and the Prime Minister call a national rail system.
Last month when I asked the minister if he would restore our bus service he said: "No". He also stated that we have a ferry service that will serve as our link to the

November 9, 1989
Supply
national rail system. Atlantic Canadians were told to use it or lose it. Well, we did, and what did we get? A reduction of 85 per cent. Imagine what would have happened if we had not used it to the extent which we did.
The national railway was the first institution to unite Canadians from coast to coast. It joined the east and the west and gave us an opportunity to travel across this country. Eliminating VIA all across Canada is a direct assault on the fundamental transportation network that has allowed Canadians to to live and work throughout the country for a century.
We have received mixed signals from this government over the past years as far as its policy regarding VIA is concerned. After the election in 1984 the government reinstated service reductions that had been in effect since 1981. In 1985 the Minister of Transport said: "It is now time to turn VIA into a strong system that is cost effective, national in scope, and one which Canadians will be proud to use".
By 1986, however, the Minister of Transport was telling Canadians to use or lose their trains. The government has stuck with this policy for almost three years now and has obviously abandoned any notion of rebuilding passenger rail service in Canada. It seems like a blatant waste and misuse of taxpayers' money for the government to have invested so much in the system only to pull the funding when things are just beginning to improve. In the first three months of 1989 revenue had increased by over $5.5 million in comparison with the same period in 1988.
In addition, within the first quarter of 1989 the number of passengers increased by 10 per cent and the occupancy rate of the service increased to 54 per cent, up 15 per cent from the first quarter of 1988. Over half of all Canadians use this service due to a variety of factors. Increased reliability is one. Many use it as an alternative mode of transportation because of congested airports and highways in poor shape. Others use it because it is one of the least expensive modes of transportation in Canada. I am sure that students can attest to this point.
By promoting the system and services to Canadians- and they are only becoming aware of what it has to offer-it is obvious that there have been marked improvements in the system. Now that things are just starting to roll and VIA is getting back on track, the government has pulled the funding for the company out from under its feet. More time is needed for VIA to prove its viability, as I have just said. Canadians are only becoming aware of its service. They should not lose it.
I am quite familiar with the way in which a community is affected when it loses its passenger train service. My home province has not had rail passenger service for a long time. We did have a bus. Now the bus is not going to be there after January 15 and we will have to take the car ferry to go to the train in Moncton. This certainly does not provide any incentive to take a train.
I am deeply troubled with the consequences of the government's policy for the economy of Prince Edward Island and indeed for the Atlantic region. It is not difficult to conclude from all we have seen that the present government is becoming increasingly indifferent and insensitive to the needs of Atlantic Canadians. The elimination of passenger train service was just the tip of the iceberg.
We in Atlantic Canada are aware of the growing national deficit that threatens to undermine the future of our country. We know that we must contribute our share to its reduction, but as we see it we are being asked to pay too high a price and the government's deficit reduction efforts are being carried out on the backs of Atlantic Canadians.
Of even more fundamental concern is that the government's actions threaten to undermine the economic base of our region with serious, severe and long-lasting consequences for all of us. I have very real concerns about the future of the Atlantic region and its people unless we are able to restore some of the fundamental principles of equity, equality and fairness that have guided the development of this nation.
This nation of Canada is a diverse country and that diversity needs to be recognized and responded to. My fear is that we in the Atlantic region are going to become the losers under the present agenda.
This government should be finding ways to improve and strengthen our rail system. One solution would be to invest in modern equipment. The improved service generated by this equipment would increase passenger
November 9, 1989

service and the need for subsidies from the federal government would decrease in time.
In conclusion, I support the motion. VIA Rail is essential to the development of communities in all areas across this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I did err a little when I said that the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan was to have the floor. The NDP is going to split the 20 minutes into 10 minutes. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan will have 10 minutes, and the hon. member for Kootenay West will have 10 minutes in order to make up the 20 minutes.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk particularly about the E and N Railway on Vancouver Island. I submit that it is a special case, although I expect special circumstances could be used in referring to many of the rail lines that are being discontinued or cut back seriously.
Eveiyone knows that the province of B.C. has filed a suit in the B.C. Supreme Court to the effect that the action by the federal government in announcing its closure of the E and N Railway is a direct contradiction of legal obligations made in perpetuity under the terms of the Constitution.
It is not that we want the taxpayers of Canada to pay any more to maintain passenger rail service on the E and N. We do say that the Government of Canada made a contract and the Government of Canada in this action is acting in collusion with the CPR to continue stealing from the people of British Columbia something that has been going on for almost 100 years.
There was a contract and there was consideration: two million acres on Vancouver Island, 20 miles on either side of a 150-mile long track, and the railroad was never built that long. Two million acres of timber, currently valued at $2 billion, was described by a royal commissioner as the finest stand of mature timber remaining in the province. Everything on and under the surface of the land and offshore, off the land-coal rights, mineral rights, 3.5 million acres in the Peace River-was turned over to the federal government by the Government of British Columbia and cash was given to the builders of the railroad, $750,000. Along with everything else, they got almost enough cash to build a railroad which cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $850,000. Tremen-
Supply
dous consideration, and for that we got a railroad that was to give us service in perpetuity.
What did the Dunsmuir interests get out of it, besides the cash of $750,000? By the time they sold the railroad, all of the transportation assets in 1905, they had sold land to the value of $4.5 million. They had only $100,000 in the railroad, but in 10 years they were able to turn over the assets for $4.5 million. They sold the remaining assets to the CPR for a total of $2.33 million. They sold coal up to that period in time of approximately 5 million tonnes for a total of $1 million. They did not sell the coal rights. The total value of the coal rights sold by the Dunsmuirs for the 50 million tonnes that were produced, for which they collected 10 cents a tonne, would be $5 million. The Dunsmuirs, with a net investment of $100,000, obtained from the people of Canada or the people of British Columbia, however you want to look at it, a net amount of $12 million quite apart from the operating of the railroad.
The CPR has not done too badly either. In 1906 it paid $2.33 million, but the federal government helped out by giving it $1.5 million in cash. It invested a net amount of $830,000 in taking over all the assets of the Dunsmuir interests with the exception of the coal and clay rights. Up to 1944 it had sold additional land to the extent of $10.3 million. It more than quadrupled its total investment and its total investment, as I say, was reduced by a government subsidy. It had 13 times the original investment returned in the sale of land alone.
It made another sale in 1964 of timber land, 229,000 acres for $56 million. That is $66 million so far in sales. It had left approximately one million acres. As I said, the royal commissioner described this as the best acreage of mature timber land in British Columbia, which was appraised at that time as being worth $2,000 an acre. That means $2 billion was left in that land at that time, plus the $56 million from that one land sale, plus the other land sales of $10 million; $2.66 billion it had received up to that point on a net investment of $.5 million.
Although the CPR has taken all that money out in excess of $2 billion in sales alone, it still has tremendous assets there. It is still logging that land. It is a federal Crown grant so the Government of British Columbia can exert no restrictions with the export of round logs. It does not have to get any permission. It is indeed exporting round logs, because it gets a better price for

November 9, 1989
Supply
round logs from overseas markets than locally. It is doing it regularly. We have no control, no influence over that in the Province of British Columbia.
It still owns all the mineral rights, with the exception of the coal and fire clay rights. What are they worth? Who knows. Some drilling was done for gas in the area some three or four years ago by British Petroleum which does not usually go in just for the fun of it. It does not usually invest a couple of million dollars just to practise. It has not told us what was found, if anything. Whatever it did find the wells have been capped and left. We do not know what is going on there. Certainly there must have been some substantial evidence that there is gas at least in the area, or British Petroleum would not have been in there drilling.
It owns the transportation system. It is not the taxpayers that owe something to the people of British Columbia. It is not the taxpayers that owe something to the residents of Vancouver Island or the people generally who want to maintain E and N Railway as a passenger service.
It is the responsibility of this government to make sure that the present owners of all those assets live up to the original contract they assumed when they took over the Dunsmuir interests and make sure that we keep the passenger rail service or, as an alternative, turn over to the taxpayers of British Columbia all the remaining assets that were given to them at the time.
I think we can afford to write off everything we have given them up to this point. Let us get back everything that is left. We will be more than able to afford to maintain a passenger service on Vancouver Island and do much more besides.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise to support the motion of the Official Opposition which reads:
That this House approves the recommendation contained in the
second report of the Standing Committee on Transport, calling for a
moratorium in the government's proposed cuts to VIA Rail.
As the member of Parliament for Kootenay West- Revelstoke and also on behalf of my colleague, the member for Kootenay East, we have been spending a considerable period of time since the minister's announcement of these cuts attempting to salvage what we can of The Canadian line that runs along the Kamloops-Calgary corridor and with very good reason.
That particular corridor is one of the most heavily utilized in the transcontinental system with the best cost recoveries of almost any rail section in the country, apart from areas within the Golden Horseshoe. It has a valid claim not only on economic grounds, but the minister is making a major pitch for economic restraint and the need to reduce the deficit. We are perhaps one of the more profitable sections of the VIA Rail system in the country and one of the more heavily utilized.
It is interesting to note that The Canadian line carried some 539,000 passengers, up from 465,000 in 1987. The Canadian line has been closed. The Super Continental carried 174,000 passengers, up from 159,000 in 1987. The Super Continental has been kept operating albeit on a reduced basis.
No one, especially myself being a member who comes from an area that is in many ways rather remote and isolated with particular transportation problems, wants to suggest that we rob Peter to pay Paul. If the minister is making one of major grounds for his arguments economics, then he should look at his own figures.
On October 6, 1989, as reported in Hansard, I asked the Minister of Transport in pointing out some of those discrepancies how he could justify that discrimination and whether he would agree to postpone and review his total abandonment of the communities along the Kam-loops-Calgary corridor.
The minister, in responding, left the door open a crack. We are certainly doing all we can to take him up on that. He said:
On the southern route there are other modes of transportation available. Otherwise, it would be considered a remote area and we would provide the service.
He goes on to set out a couple of other conditions which we can easily meet to show that he would be willing to discuss in particular the arguments presented by the communities along that line.
The minister received, as did I, a fax late yesterday or this morning from the manager of the chamber of commerce in the city of Revelstoke. There is a meeting to be held in the village of Golden on the 16th of this month. They have asked the minister-and that is a little

difficult to do but he has agreed; I met with him this morning-to send a representative there. There will be representatives from almost every community and every chamber of commerce along the Kamloops-Calgary corridor including Banff, Golden, Field, Invermere, Revelstoke, and other points in between.
We hope that we can establish a case, but with what is happening within the VIA Rail structure right now, as it is already beginning to come apart at the seams, we need time. I am sure there are other communities across Canada with as valid reasons as we have that also need time to marshal the facts of their own cases and time to persuade the minister or the department of the validity of their claims, even given what we may believe are the incorrect assumptions of the government as to the reasons for shutting down major parts of the whole system.
The traffic volumes and cost recovery are comparatively speaking much worse in those areas than, for instance, from Jasper to Prince Rupert, which is being given three days a week of service under the remote configurations which the minister has laid out.
We have particular problems in the communities of Field and Revelstoke. Revelstokians have to drive at least 200 kilometres to get to the nearest commercial airport. They and the people of Golden and Field also live in an area which is now to be deprived of all commercial rail passenger service. This area has its highways totally cut off more often due to heavy snow fall and avalanche closures than any other part of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, coming from the part of the country that you come from, I am sure you are aware of that. I do not think there is anyone from western Canada who cares for travel at all who has not on a number of occasions travelled that corridor between Kamloops and Calgary and perhaps to Vancouver.
The government is suggesting that it is going to keep the Rocky Mountaineer because it is good for tourism. That is good. We have hundreds of millions of dollars in offshore investment right now riding on the necessity of improved transportation between Banff and Revelstoke and Kamloops and Calgary. If this is closed before we get proper airport facilities, before we get double laning and better snow shedding along the Trans-Canada Highway,
Supply
we are going to lose the potential of building up a major tourist industry in the Revelstoke area that coupled with Banff can provide a major economic boost to an area which otherwise has been very depressed by the resource depression of a few years ago and the timber supply problems we are having in British Columbia.
The minister appears to have an open ear on this particular case, but it is not enough. There are not only our communities but hundreds of communities, I am sure, all across Canada that rightly or wrongly feel that they even within the departments's own guidelines can establish a proper case.
They do need time to prepare their cases, to make their cases, to attempt to convince the government. I would hope that there is yielding to emotions such as we have had or to the spirit at least of the motion that the Official Opposition has put before us today and that a moratorium is put on. It does not specify a time period, so even the passage of this motion would not bind the government to a particular number of hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies over a particular period to provide some time at the minister's or government's discretion so that we can make our cases and attempt to make the best of what we think is the bad deal imposed right across Canada by these arbitrary cuts to the VIA Rail system.
I am thankful for the very timely opportunity to be able make some of these arguments today. I hope the officials who will be attending for the Minister of Transport in Golden on November 16 will get an earful and will decide that they have heard the facts. In addition to having some of the best freight rail service in Canada justified by the expenditures of almost $500 million during the last few years to give us the longest tunnel in the Commonwealth to carry freight, we can also utilize those new facilities to cany passengers both ways on what is, without a doubt, one of the most beautiful areas of this country.
If we are willing to expend money either through a public rail system or through privatized local branches for tourism, is it not also proper and can we not also make a case that we ought to spend some money on behalf of serving Canadians, especially in those areas where they do not have effective choices as to their modes of transportation, at least until such time as we

November 9, 1989
Supply
expend the dollars to provide them with the other modes of transportation which most other Canadians enjoy?


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to support this motion for a moratorium on the government's decision with respect to VIA Rail. There are a number of reasons which I want to share with members. The first one, which I consider of critical importance, is the reality that we are facing today with respect to a constitutional crisis of major proportion. We recognize that VIA Rail is a institution which binds the nation. It gets us to know each other. It gets us to understand what each other's aspirations, dreams, hopes and desires are for this great, wonderful country of ours. It is another institution which is being destroyed gradually, which is being dismantled. It fits, unfortunately, into a number of other decisions that have been made by government.
Members will recall that Air Canada was not for sale and it has now been sold. That is another institution that permitted us to travel throughout this great land, one of the largest countries of the world.
We all know that the unemployment insurance program was not to be changed. That was promised during the election and, of course, we all know as well that that did not happen. There have been massive changes that will affect people.
We know about the Canada-U.S. trade deal and I am not here to discuss the pros and cons but surely there is no one in this House who will not accept that it has had a major impact upon Canadians throughout Canada and certainly not all of them positive.
We know that today in the House there have been comments with respect to the reduction of transfer payments, actually the cutting of significant dollars, billions of dollars to health and education. In fact, between 1986 and 1994 it will amount to $24 billion less for health and education.
We know that 31 tax increases have been undertaken by the government. We have talked extensively during the last few weeks about the goods and services tax and how it will touch and affect every single Canadian in this nation.
We know, in fact we have it in writing from a member of government that universality is in the process of being destroyed. These new programs that have been proposed by government will affect seniors and will in fact affect families.
The point I want to make is that there has been so much happening in this country that affects Canadians throughout that it has had a destabilizing effect, and this is one more decision that covers an institution that had as an objective getting us to know each other and reach out to one another. Even from this particular perspective, if we look at it in the context of the constitutional crises that we are going through today, it is worth-while considering and supporting this moratorium to somehow tone the tempers down a bit, to reflect and sit back to see what we might be able to do to bring us closer together.
The other point I want to make and another reason why we should consider this moratorium seriously is because we are talking about over 2,700 workers throughout Canada. We are talking about those workers being affected directly. We are not talking about the many, the thousands in fact of men and women who depend upon those workers for a number of service industries.
We are entering the holiday season. I want us to think about those men and women, their children, brothers, sisters and parents. What kind of holiday season do they have to look forward to? Let us just think of being faced with the same decision. How would we feel individually? How would our spouses, children, our friends and relatives feel? I cannot think of a worse time of year to implement this particular decision, to leave people with such little hope for the future.

There is another reason I would like to share with Hon. Members. You will surely know that Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Peterson today asxed for a freeze on the cuts. Why? Because they want to look at what the options are. Is there something else they could do to maintain and improve services?
What I am saying is, if that request can possibly be granted-and I hope it will be-it is just as important that it also applies to Atlantic and western Canada.
It seems reasonable that, when in the process of making a decision that has such an impact on Canadians, we take the trouble to pause a while and review the
November 9, 1989

figures to be absolutely sure that the decision to be made is in Canada's best interest. If we did, I am sure other alternatives could be found, other ways to meet the needs of Canadians.
There is a last point I would like to make. Like a number of other Members, I have a concern for our small, remote communities mostly in the north. It seems to me that there is a principle here that is absolutely basic to this country's very existence. As we know, a significant number of Canadians live outside urban centers. What they want, what I would like to give them as much as possible is a quality of life that compares favorably with what we have in our urban areas. I don't think there is any argument about that! It seems to me that a key ingredient is a transportation system, whether roads, airports, railroads, that can give them not only a sense of belonging, the feeling they have their fare share, but also the feeling that in a not too distant future they will enjoy the same quality of life as is enjoyed by citizens of Canada's largest centers.
I think it is essential to reconsider, if only for fundamental reasons such as ensuring that residents of small or remote communities have access to the same quality of service than city dwellers.
To sum up, there are four reasons. Firstly, we are now going through a constitutional crisis. This seems to be another decision that was used to break off long established ties. I think it would be worthwhile to preserve them and to reexamine our options. Secondly, let us think about these 2,700 people, men and women, children, parents and relatives. Soon we will be celebrating the holiday season. What a present we are giving them! If we made that decision, we could give them a great present and offer them some hope and-who knows- we could perhaps, with enlightened minds, find less drastic, threatening and difficult alternatives.
Thirdly, I told you earlier that some premiers are supporting us and asking for a moratorium. This request is not without support, mine included, except for the two big provinces. Of course, it is all very well for the Atlantic provinces and the West.
My last comment is this: Let us not forget our small, remote and sparsely populated communities that still want the same thing we, city dwellers, want: a quality of
Supply
life that compares favorably with that enjoyed in the major centres.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I rise to address this motion on behalf of the constituents of Winnipeg North. The motion introduced by the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte states:
That this House approve the recommendation contained in the
Second Report of the Standing Committee on Transport, calling for a
moratorium in the Government's proposed cuts to VIA Rail.
In arguing this motion, my colleague has spoken of our VIA Rail system in beautiful language, referring to it as "the ribbon of steel that binds our country".
I support this motion because I would like to see all Canadians from coast to coast served by an excellent passenger rail system.
In speaking to this motion, I would like to quote freely from the report of the Standing Committee on Transport so that Canadians across the country may hear some of the highlights of this report in order that they may judge for themselves as to whether we are right in arguing that a moratorium be established as a consequence of this study by the Standing Committee on Transport.
In introducing its report, the standing committee said:
- the committee believed that it could not ignore the public concern and reaction and therefore decided to hold public hearings in Ottawa on the future of rail passenger service.
The members of this committee, the majority of whom belong to the government party, decided that they should hear the concerns of Canadians first hand. As a consequence they went further:
As a result of the establishment of a Royal Commission (on national transportation) which will examine in depth the place of rail passenger service with a national transportation strategy, the Committee felt that its hearings should be compressed in order to report its findings to the Government before the cuts come into effect.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the essence of this motion. The committee tried to do overtime work, but careful and diligent work. It has presented a report so that the government could address the issue of a moratorium

November 9, 1989
Supply
before it proceeds with its plan to cut VIA Rail's system, come the middle of next year.
Does not this government have a heart? Will it not listen to a committee of this House of Commons, the majority of its members belonging to the government party? Do we not see in here the non-partisan issue that VIA Rail passenger service has generated in the country. I ask the government to do a little soul searching, and for once listen to Parliament. As I said in the past, our Parliament is not a Parliament for government, but a Parliament for Canadians across our country.
I would like to highlight some of the report. The Standing Committee on Transport indicated, and I quote:
Throughout the hearings the Committee was confronted with a plethora of divergent statistics put forward by various witnesses with great persuasion and conviction.
Then it continues:
The observation the Committee would like to make is that the statistics can be used to make anyone's case or position sound persuasive. We do not intend, in this report, to become tangled in the "numbers game". In our view, this would be unproductive and somewhat redundant because obviously, the royal commission will be examining this problem in detail.
What the committee felt is that we should should find the real truth, and there is nothing wrong with that. Canadians would like to hear and know the real truth.
Obviously there are conflicting statistics being presented, but let the royal commission which has been given a mandate by this government to first make an interim report so that the government may be well advised to then consider what action to take next. Let us first diagnose the problem, not settle on the treatment before the diagnosis, otherwise it could be the wrong treatment and therefore harmful to the people of our country.
On the issue of cost-effectiveness, I quote:
- the committee is not persuaded that the Government plan is the most cost-effective option. This leads us to conclude that is likely that VIA will have great difficulty operating the new network successfully within the reference levels set by the government.
Here, again, the committee is not convinced of the government plan. The committee has challenged the
government plan. This is the committee of Parliament, the supreme court in our country, the supreme body that should be formulating policy. I would like the government, which is only a part of Parliament, to accede to the request of a standing committee of this House.
On the issue of the environment I quote:
There was considerable comment during the hearings regarding the adverse impact of the new VIA Rail Plan on the environment. What is clear to the Committee is that the "environmental factor" has become a critical issue in the development and implementation of a national transportation policy.
In that light, we are not satisfied that the minister's potential environmental impact assessment is adequate or persuasive.
Again, the committee feels that the government has not done a careful study about the adverse impact on the environment of cutting the VIA Rail passenger service.
On the remote services:
The question the Committee grappled with regarding the mandatory or remote services was whether they were truly remote and whether there were more cost effective transportation alternatives.
The committee believes that, as was pointed out in the evidence, serving these communities should be a social obligation and therefore separated from VIA's funding and treated as an imposed public duty.
I would like to repeat and underscore that when we serve the remote communities of our country, we have to consider it as a public social obligation. We truly have to subsidize those routes because when we do that, we demonstrate that we care for Canadians whether or not they are in the remote parts of our country.
On equipment:
In the Committee's view old and unreliable equipment has adversely affected ridership and subsidy levels over the past decade.
They would like the equipment to be modernized. On the labour assistance programs, the committee states:
- the Committee calls upon the Government and VIA to ensure
that all employees are treated fairly and with compassion.
On deficit reduction:
There was some persuasive evidence to the effect that the
Government's plan will not produce the predicted reduction in the
deficit.
November 9, 1989

So even this committee of which, I repeat, the majority of the members belong to the government, doubt the figures of the government.
In its conclusion, the committee can only come to one conclusion:
-VIA never had a chance in the beginning.
It used a beautiful term, an emphatic term but the meaning conveyed is very sad for the country. It was "stillborn". It goes on:
The current evidence has not convinced the Committee that the salvation of VIA is at hand as a result of the new Government plan.
On this basis, when Canadians hear these very specific recommendations coming from this committee, they will immediately be convinced, as we have already felt from their submissions to us through petitions, that they are truly against the government plan.
This government is challenged. We will see whether it can prove sensitive and responsive to the sentiments of the vast majority of Canadians, whether it can prove sensitive and responsive to the sentiments of the representatives of Canadians, the members of Parliament reflected in this standing committee of this House, the majority members of which come from the government side. The very first recommendation of the standing committee is:
That the Government declare a moratorium on its announced service cuts to VIA Rail that are to become effective January 15, 1990.
The committee would like an interim report from the royal commission.
In conclusion, I think the standing committee has provided us with very compelling and persuasive arguments that we should have at the very least a moratorium on the government plan. The committee has not asked for a permanent change of the government plan. The committee has only asked that there be a temporaiy cessation so that the royal commission could proceed with its study. When it recommends in the future that not be too late, but this government plan could make such future recommendations impossible. The standing committee is trying to tell us to give VIA Rail a chance. If there is a vision in this country for all Canadians we
Supply
should exercise the political will. If there is a political will we can discover the political way.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that you recognized me. I might add that the few observations I want to make will probably not take the ten minutes allocated to me.
I simply want to take a few minutes of the time of the House to shed some light on the economic situation of VIA Rail resulting from the budget allocated to the corporation by the government of Canada. I also want to say a few words concerning the number of Canadians who travel with VIA Rail.
Mr. Speaker, I attended most of the transport committee hearings. Sure enough, many people, many organizations and many municipal spokesmen appeared before the committee to say that the funds earmarked for VIA Rail should not be reduced, yet not one of them was able to suggest a mechanism which the federal government might use to continue paying grants to cover the operating costs of VIA Rail.
Mr. Speaker, for some time now people have been saying that the government's decision to slash VIA Rail funding comes at a time when ever more people travel by train and the corporation is beginning to see better days ahead. Reality does not lend credence to such statements, Mr. Speaker. As my colleague the Hon. Member for Roberval (Mr. Bouchard) has been saying so many times in recent months, Canadian taxpayers can no longer afford to give VIA Rail ever larger grants at a time when the corporation's productivity is declining. I would emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that the government has been subsidizing VIA Rail's operating costs.
Need I recall that last year these grants rose to $641 million, an unprecedented amount which, I repeat, was spent to cover the operating deficit of VIA Rail. Mr. Speaker, this kind of money amounts on average to $100 for each passenger boarding a train, that is $100 paid by the Canadian taxpayers every time a passenger climbs aboard a train. Another factor which cannot be ignored is that since 1977 VIA Rail has gobbled up more than $5 billion of the taxpayer's money, including over $1 billion in capital expenditures to give VIA Rail a chance to make a go of it. Mr. Speaker, we ought to realize that the billion dollars which was paid to VIA Rail to improve its

November 9, 1989
Supply
equipment and facilities did not bring about the anticipated results.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to emphasize the fact that I represent a riding which is almost completely deprived of all means of transportation. In its Eastern part, it is even without roads. During the summer, for the most part, we depend on sea and air services. I can tell you that if, every year, it had only one of every 20 dollars of the amount I have just mentioned, it could work miracles by improving its means of communications as well as it health and education services. We must realize also that in spite of the huge amounts of money it was paid over the past few years, VIA Rail has failed to improve its performance. Although its subsidies skyrocketed, its ridership went down.
We must face the fact that VIA Rail saw the number of its passengers, which amounted to 5.9 million in 1987, increase to 6.4 million in 1988. But, in fact, this increase in VIA'S ridership in 1988 is compared with 1987, the year during which VIA Rail transported the smallest number of passengers since its creation. As a matter of fact, the ridership is down 20 per cent as compared to 1981, when that year it transported approximately 8 million passengers.
A general view of the passenger service offered in this country indicate that VIA Rail has not improved its performance. In spite of the fact the Government played its part, and VIA Rail tried to improve its services, we must recognize that Canadians have turned their back on the train. They have demonstrated their preference for other means of transportation. Today, rail passenger service in Canada accounts for only 3 per cent of all long distance travels, compared to 7 per cent by plane and 84 per cent by car. Six per cent of long distance travellers prefer bus transportation. Twice as many Canadians have used buses over VIA Rail trains.
All these data confirm that Canadians clearly prefer travelling by means other than trains.
As the Minister of Transport stated, and I quote:
Canadian taxpayers can no longer afford to provide increasingly
high subsidies to a means of transportation which travellers are
abandonning in increasing numbers.
The government had promised Canadians to provide them with an affordable and modern national system of rail passenger services. However, Canadians must use it.
The federal government wants Canadians to understand that they must use railway services or lose them, and that financing for passenger rail services will depend on the choices they make.
Since railway services attract so few travellers and the government is committed to reducing expenditures, we cannot keep giving VIA Rail the same financial support we have in the past.
Mr. Speaker, let me explain. We must realize that the situation at VIA Rail has deteriorated on all fronts. In 1988, VIA Rail had 6.4 million passengers, a 20 per cent drop since 1981. Allowing for the increase indicated in the preliminary figures for 1989, ridership is still 19.5 per cent less than it was in 1981, this at a time when subsidies to VIA Rail increased considerably. They went from $524 million in 1981 to $641 million in 1988, an increase of 22 per cent. The average per passenger subsidy received by VIA Rail from the Government of Canada has gone up 52 per cent, from $66 in 1981 to $100 in 1988.
Cost recovery has only gone from 28 per cent in 1981 to 30 per cent in 1988. I think these figures are very revealing.
VIA ridership has gone down slightly, from 53 per cent in 1981 to 52 per cent in 1988. VIA Rail operating costs were over $753 million in 1988, while revenues were $223 million. Is there any carrier in Canada, whether we are talking about air, marine or highway transportation, that can afford to spend $750 million with revenues of about $225 million? No company can afford to do that. Only VIA Rail could, because every year, VIA Rail could count on the generosity of Canadian citizens who were financing passenger rail transportation with their taxes.
I would like to mention certain routes, including the Toronto-Windsor route which had the best record for cost recovery in 1988, although it was still only 43.6 per cent.
The Toronto-Calgaiy-Vancouver route had the highest ridership rate in 1988, that is 70 per cent, but cost recovery was only 30 per cent.
In 1988, per passenger subsidy ranged from $21 on the Toronto-Niagara Falls route to $484 on the Edmonton-Prince Rupert line. It was $378 on the remote line from Winnipeg to Churchill, $199 on Cochrane-Kapuskas-ing, $116 on Montreal-Saint-John-Halifax and $74 on Montreal-Quebec City.

November 9, 1989

The figures I just quoted are indeed revealing and reflect the high cost of operating VIA Rail in Canada, considering that it is used by so few travellers.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I may say I am convinced that the schedule VIA Rail has been offered, the amounts the federal government is prepared to spend on VIA Rail in the next five years, ensures that VIA Rail will be able to provide Canadians with an acceptable and good quality service. However, Mr. Speaker, VIA Rail must be well managed, and it will have be managed like a company that operates in a competitive sector. VIA Rail will have to prove its mettle, and if it does, the Government of Canada will continue to support it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to take this opportunity to thank all hon. members for
Supply
finetuning their debate to 10 minutes. We noticed we were able to get a few extra speakers in today. If we do this quite regularly more members can take part in our debates and this is what Parliament is all about.
It being 3.50 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(17), proceedings on the motion have expired.
Pursuant to the Order made Tuesday, November 7, 1989, this House stands adjourned until Monday, November 20, 1989, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
Have a pleasant vacation.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3.51 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 20,1989