1989-06-09

[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]
Friday, June 9,1989

benefit in terms of co-operating on a day like today. _____________ Perhaps, having flagged this problem, for future opposition days when we are making these suggestions, we could consider that. However, for today, in the spirit of Prayers______co-operation and more important, a willingness to try
some new approaches to debating in the House, we will _____________ certainly be co-operating.

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, if you would ask for unanimous consent, I think you would find that the House is favourably disposed to operate in a manner similar to the rules we followed yesterday. Each caucus makes its own decision as to whether or not it wants to use up their 20-minute time slot in one of the two following methods; first, that the Member could use the traditional 20 minutes, with a 10-minute question and answer period, or alternatively, as we did yesterday, the caucus in question could split up the time into a 10-minute speech, followed immediately by a five-minute question and answer period, followed immediately again by another Member of the same caucus with a 10-minute speech, and again followed with a five-minute question and answer period.
I think you will find, Mr. Speaker, that the House is favourably disposed to this kind of initiative. It is exactly the same as the procedure we utilized yesterday. If the House agrees, perhaps because of the time at which we will be starting, I could indicate right now that if such is the case, our first speaker will be starting with a 20-minute speech because it will be our lead-off speaker.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the suggestion made in terms of today's proceedings. We certainly will co-operate but we have a problem, and that is concerning the normal rotation of speakers. We in the New Democratic Party will not benefit from this change because we likely will only have one speaker today. Our first speaker will also go for the 20-minute and 10-minute period.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that the Government is prepared to co-operate in this as well. Our concern would be that we would like to have the Minister speak this morning before 11 o'clock. That would be our only concern. It does not affect the 20-minute, 10-minute, rule.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I see there is a disposition of the House to proceed on that order.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe -Baie Verte)
moves:
That this House condemns the Government for its short-sighted and punitive policies that are designed to eliminate passenger rail services in Canada despite the essential nature of these services to the development of communities in all regions of the country.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as is always the case, of course, the Speaker occupies a position of great authority and, consequently, neutrality in the House, and just as a Speaker should, you read that motion clearly, concisely and dispassionately. Because you read it with the latter adjective attached to it I think it bears rereading since
[Stage Direction]
June 9. 1989
Supply
you, Sir, in a very non-partisan way merely put the motion.
What the motion states is:
That this House condemns the Government for its short-sighted and punitive policies that are designed to eliminate passenger rail services in Canada despite the essential nature of the services to the development of communities in all regions of the country.
We bring this motion to the attention of the House today because the Government of Canada has embarked upon a policy, a short-sighted policy, that not only will deny in the short term the people of Canada a rail passenger service, which in itself is important and devastating for the communities to be affected but, more fundamentally, it is denying Canadians as we move into the 1990s and the year 2000 the future.
Why do I say that? We have a Government which through an arbitrary decision contained in the federal Budget, made a decision to cut back substantially on the amount of money provided to VIA Rail to provide rail passenger service in Canada. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) is a Minister-let no one be fooled- who is no fool. I want to vouch for the fact that the Minister of Transport is a reasonably intelligent individual. He is a reasonably political individual. He is someone who understands the consequences of his actions. He is not a mere puppet in the hands of the bureaucrats, completely without any sense or understanding of the consequences of his actions.
Yet we have the same Minister standing in his place in the House day after day, in committee, before the cameras and before the public saying: "We are not telling VIA Rail what to do. We are not telling it what service it should provide. We are not telling it what services it should cut. We are merely telling VIA it has no money. The rest is up to them". "I want to assure you", says this Minister with his most baleful, honest and sincere look, "the Government of Canada has not targeted parts of this country, such as Atlantic Canada. We have not abandoned the West. We have not shattered our commitments to those rural communities all across this land. We are merely telling VIA Rail that it has $500 million less than it used to have. The responsibility for how it lives within that new budget is its problem, not mine, not ours".
For a reasonably heretofore described intelligent, reasonably aware, reasonably engaging Minister of the Crown to make that kind of foolhardy proposition is an insult to the intelligence of Canadians. Let it be clearly said today that it is not some mindless, faceless group of bureaucrats in some long lost corporation occupying the top floor of some glass and steel ivory tower called VIA Rail that is making the decision to abandon rural Canada. It is the Government of Canada and, specifically, the Minister of Transport who is responsible for the actions that are being taken today. Let no one be fooled.
What exactly is involved in this decision by the Government? So it is on the record and so Canadians know what we are talking about, it is the elimination of some 22 routes. The routes west are Montreal-Sudbury, Toronto-Winnipeg-Calgary, Winnipeg-Edmonton, Vic-toria-Kootenay, in Quebec, Chaleurs-Gaspe, Quebec-Mont Joli, Montreal-Sherbrooke, North Shore and in Ontario, Kingston-Toronto, Toronto-Sarnia, Toronto-Niagara, Toronto-London, Toronto-Havelock, Toronto-North Bay, and Cochrane-Kapuskasing. The Atlantic routes are Halifax-Dartmouth, Halifax-Montreal, Hali-fax-Sydney, Halifax-Saint John, Moncton-Campbellton, Moncton-Edmundston and Moncton-Charlottetown. Then there is Calgary-Vancouver, Edmonton-Vancouver, the corridor between Toronto and Montreal, Quebec-Montreal-Hervey, western Winnipeg and Win-nipeg-The Pas. Only six of the nine remaining remote routes were left untouched. Only one route was increased. Of 35 routes, potentially 22 are to be eliminated. Six are to be reduced. That is the consequence of the decision taken by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his Budget.
I began my remarks by saying that the Government of Canada is not just taking a decision that fundamentally alters one of the important modes of transportation in this country and abandons communities, in particular, in rural parts of Canada, but that the Government is also denying the future to Canadians. I said that because the Minister of Transport knows, as does the Minister of Finance, that VIA Rail under its former President, Denis deBelleval, a President who was fired, eliminated, vaporized, disposed of by the Minister of Transport, was putting together, along with his officials and with the
June 9, 1989
[Stage Direction]
best advice he found in Canada, a corporate plan for VIA Rail.
It is one that did not envisage in the long term the continued pay-out of substantial subsidies to VIA Rail, subsidies in the amount that are now being paid out but a corporate plan that foresaw VIA Rail being a modern, efficient, competitive, productive and profitable rail passenger service for Canada.
Fundamental to that plan was examining, as has been developed in other countries, notably Japan and countries in Europe, a high-speed rail passenger service. Nobody who is serious about rail passenger traffic in Canada-and this is the argument of the Minister- would argue that the future of VIA Rail is its present or its past, a continuation of the kind and level and quality of service that we have today. Those who are serious about a rail passenger service in the country, including the former President who was fired, Mr. Denis deBelle-val, looked into the future.
In fact they looked into the present in Japan and in Europe and saw that a rail passenger service could only be viable and survive if we looked seriously at the concept and the notion of high speed trains. Even in advance of receiving that corporate plan into which a great deal of work, thought and effort had gone, not to mention $4 million of taxpayers' money, the Minister of Finance, with the concurrence of the Minister of Transport on April 27 in his Budget, took an arbitrary decision not only to wipe out the existing rail passenger service but to eliminate even the possibility of Canada looking seriously and soberly at the future, looking at the possibility and the concept of high speed trains.
It must be said that where high speed trains have matured in their development and where they are in place today they are not only efficient, on time and moving vast numbers of people, they are profitable. They have either paid or are paying for themselves. In some cases they are actually being used to cross-subsidize more remote services because of the level of profit involved in the operation of high speed trains. That is the kind of future that Mr. deBelleval and those at VIA today envisage for rail passenger service in Canada. That is the kind of concept which says that Canada in 1989 as a modern and yet, yes, Mr. Speaker, wealthy western nation surely should seriously examine. That is the kind
Supply
of future which this Government in a short-sighted desire to meet the bottom line objective of the Minister of Finance turned its back on. Nothing less than that was the consequence of the decision by the Minister of Transport.
I come from Newfoundland and in Newfoundland we have some experience with a Government that tells you, "We are not eliminating your service, my friend, we are merely making an adjustment. Actually what we are going to do is make your service better and more productive. Trust us. There is no plan back here on the shelf to eliminate your service entirely. We would never do such a dastardly thing."
I recall the words of the Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), the Minister of Transport's colleague in Cabinet, when he told Newfoundlanders, "Those who would suggest the abandonment of the rail service in Newfoundland are treacherous. They are traitors to Newfoundland and I will have none of it." Those words still echo in the far corners of this exalted Chamber if you listen carefully. You can listen as hard as you want but you cannot hear the sound of the train crossing the tracks of Newfoundland any more because that train is gone, abandoned. The rails are rusting.
We heard in Newfoundland exactly the same kind of pact, the same kind of deception, the same kind of phoney assurance, the same kind of "my hands are clean and I cannot do anything about it. We merely make the financial decisions, the rest is up to CN or VIA Rail." The same kind of nonsense we heard in Newfoundland we are hearing today about VIA Rail.
Mr. Mifflin:: And no compensation.


Mr. Tobin:: And no compensation. Canadians should know that when this Minister rises as he will in a few minutes, and he gives them once again those assurances that the matter is not really in our hands it is in VIA Rail's, perhaps through lease and adjustment, but the fundamentals of a service shall be there at least in Canada's best served cities and population areas. When he gives us those assurances, remember, I say to those who listen to his words, that these are the same assurances from the same Government that we have heard about train service in the Province of Newfoundland, a service that is now entirely gone.

June 9, 1989
Supply
These are the same assurances we have heard from the same Government during an election campaign about regional development being a sacred trust. If, Mr. Speaker, there is an election and you need a commitment to regional development you have got it. If there is an election and you need a commitment to no changes to the UIC, well you have got that too. If there is an election and you need a commitment to day care of $4 billion or $5 billion, my gosh, you have got that too. You ask the Prime Minister, "Can you afford all these?" "Every damn nickel has been accounted for", he says. Yes, Mr. Speaker, and as soon as that election is over a budget is brought in by "Mac the Knife" and every one of those commitments are shattered along with-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: That is Mike the Knife.


Brian Vincent Tobin: -dozens of others and so too was the so-called commitment to VIA Rail by the Government.
What is at stake in the decision of the Minister of Finance and defended by his Minister of Transport? Some Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. He ought to be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail, transported away from this place.
He has presided over the disintegration of Canada's national transportation systems in a nation that was built on transportation. John A. Macdonald, that great Conservative Prime Minister had a vision of Canada, a great land mass from sea to sea, stretching from Atlantic to Pacific, from the southern boundaries to the north. He said this country can only be knit together by developing transportation systems which allow our people to move freely across our borders, to develop a flow of traffic and people and commerce east and west and not north and south.
That man, John A. Macdonald, who had a dream over 123 years ago, finds that dream being shattered and turned into a nightmare by these cousins, these people who have followed in his footsteps but have abandoned the path that he chose for this nation by destroying our basic transportation systems.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I say to the people of Canada that they ought not to be lulled by the phoney assurances of this Government. We have heard them in too many other areas. The people ought to understand that what is being
proposed by this Government is the total elimination of our rail passenger service.
The President of Transport 2000, a non-partisan, does not align himself with any political ideology and does not associate with any particular political party. He has but one objective and that is the maintenance of decent transportation systems for Canada, in particular rail transportation. The president of Transport 2000 has said, "It makes sense to me that there will remain only the Quebec City-Toronto corridor". One train to the east and only a tourist train in the west. We can see it coming.
It used to be that being a Canadian citizen was not a guarantee of equality, was not a guarantee that no matter where we lived or how we pursued a livelihood, we would all be equal. No one ever expected that and no one ever demanded that. Being a Canadian citizen used to be a guarantee of equal opportunity and a guarantee that in some fundamental basic areas, while we could not all be equal, notwithstanding our circumstance, citizenship carried with it some services available to all of us in equal measure no matter where we lived.
One of the fundamentals is health care. Another is the opportunity for a good education. Another is the basic rights afforded all citizens under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Another one, because of the very nature of this country's sparse population and its tremendous land mass, is the ability and freedom to move and not be penalized because of where you live.
For many Canadians VIA Rail is a fundamental right not only in terms of freight services but for passenger service as well. For the Government of Canada today to make an arbitrary decision that rail passenger service must be productive, efficient and profitable, after the Government has abandoned it for so many years and has not given it the tools to be productive, efficient and profitable, is an abandonment of the regions. It is an extension of the philosophy which says that if you do not live in the Quebec City-Windsor corridor you are a second class Canadian, because this Government takes its cue from the market-place, and if the market-place does not determine that you should have a certain level of service as far as this Government concerns, you do not exist.
June 9, 1989

The decision to abandon VIA Rail is not merely a transportation decision, it is an extension of a philosophic view about Canada. It is an idea about Canada that heretofore was foreign to the people of this nation. It is a view that reduces the country to a mere collection of pieces on a monopoly board. It attaches a value to citizenship that assigns the least value to it depending upon how far away one lives from the centre.
We in the Liberal Party cannot accept that view, that vision of Canada. Nor can we in this Party, this forwardlooking, progressive, reformist Party, accept that Canada, a country among the nations of the world, must turn its back on the future. We cannot deny the opportunity to examine the technology that exists today to make this a modem and efficient transportation nation. We cannot accept that Japan and western Europe can develop high speed trains, make them productive, paying and efficient, serve their people and that Canada somehow is a backward nation incapable of developing that kind of transportation system.
We cannot accept that, Mr. Speaker. That is why we condemn the Government today. That is why we invite Canadians everywhere to understand the full implications of this decision and to battle this Government. They should make their voices heard to ensure that VIA Rail continues as a viable entity serving Canadians no matter where they live and to ensure that Canada moves into the 21st century in rail passenger service and not turn its back on the future and operate like a dinosaur lost in the forest of decades gone. This Minister of Transport is a dinosaur. This Government has abandoned the regions. This Government stands condemned before the people of Canada for a short-sighted, narrow, and punitive decision.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hovdebo:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the approach that the Member from Newfoundland took. Does he or his Party have a specific plan which they believe should be put into place for VIA in Canada?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. I think it is well known to all Members who have been involved in the work of the Standing Committee on Transport, and indeed all Members who have a
Supply
particular interest in transportation, that VIA Rail has worked very hard for the last number of years and has expended millions of dollars of funds to develop a plan for VIA Rail's future.
We know that the centre-piece of that plan is a determined examination of the whole concept of high speed trains. I think everybody in Canada, notwithstanding their political ideology, accepts that it is not an appropriate decision nor desire by anybody to see VIA Rail continue to operate at a loss of hundreds of millions of dollars per year. I do not believe the NDP supports that concept. The Liberal Party does not. The Government uses that notion as an excuse to destroy VIA Rail.
Those who are forward looking do not demand the status quo, that is the same low quality equipment, the same inappropriate service, and the very same routes being serviced in the very same way and manner forever. Nobody is looking for the status quo except the Minister. He tells us that it is the status quo or nothing. He makes the case that the status quo is not acceptable, the losses are not acceptable and therefore it is nothing.
He does not give the nation or VIA Rail an opportunity not to promote the status quo but to move beyond the status quo and into the present. We are actually operating a service that reflects the past. It reflects an ageing technology and ageing way of doing this rather than moving into the future.
The Member asked if I have a specific plan. Yes, Mr. Speaker, my plan and the plan of the liberal party, as well as that of all Members, should be to allow the people at Via Rail, who are in this business and who understand that the status quo was not acceptable to the Government and Canadians, to submit to the Minister as they are going to do in the next few weeks a plan that envisaged a role for VIA in the future and looked at the relevance of high speed trains. The plan should not be to throw money at it.
I happen to have a personal belief. I am willing to see VIA's concept challenged. If we in a countiy with technological ability and relative wealth are not prepared to invest in the future and to look very seriously at the concept of high speed trains, we may as well acknowledge today that we have no role and no ability to be in the rail passenger service and get out of it.

June 9. 1989
Supply
What the Minister of Transport has done is come to that conclusion before he has even seen VIA Rail's brief, before he has even examined the possibility. This Minister has allowed a Finance Minister and his particular wants and dictates at a particular point in time to shape the future in a fundamental way of rail passenger service in Canada. Surely nobody in this House can seriously believe that they can cut $500 million out of VIA Rail's operating budget and expect there is going to be a rail passenger service in Canada. There is not going to be, by any stretch of the imagination, a national rail passenger service. Nor, with those kind of cuts, is there any serious ability to examine a forward, future looking concept, that is, the notion of high speed trains.


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Member who just spoke. I understand that if the VIA Rail service through Edmonton is cut, we will lose a thousand jobs in our city alone.
The Member will perhaps know that at Progressive Conservative hearings in 1981 and 1982, we found that each year something like a quarter of a million Atlantic Canadians took the train that goes through Maine. I assume that many of those people were students, many had low incomes, and many were senior citizens.
What does the Hon. Member think it will do regionally to Atlantic Canada? I guess we cannot do anything more to Newfoundland since it does not have a train. What does he think it will do to the Maritime Provinces if the train called "The Atlantic" going through Maine is cut?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. I was in Alberta last week and I happen to know that there is a great deal of concern in Edmonton about the possibility of Edmonton being dropped, with the loop that now runs into Edmonton being eliminated as part of the package of cuts about which I have just talked.
I can well understand that the Member is hearing the kinds of concerns Canadians are expressing across the country. In asking a specific question about Edmonton, noting Edmonton and then going on to reflect upon the cuts in Atlantic Canada-and given that the Hon. Member comes from the West and that we are of two different Parties; I do not want to be partisan about it-I think he reflects the feeling in this country in particular
about the regions. "Region" is a dastardly word. It denotes "afterthought" when policies are made at the centre. This plan will see a run continue from Quebec City to Windsor, but not much else anywhere in the so-called regions.
I think the Member reflects the feeling in this country which goes far beyond merely a transportation issue. The basic contract that we made in something called Confederation was that while we could not all be equal, the concept of citizenship would carry with it basic services that we could all depend upon. It is the feeling in this country that the basic contract called Confederation is being broken.
Via Rail is very much for Canadians who live not just outside of Quebec and Ontario, but those who live outside Toronto, Montreal. It is also for those people in northern Quebec and Ontario, as well as the other eight provinces. They have a feeling that the Government is walking away not only in this area but in so many areas from the basic contract that we bind ourselves to when we stand with pride, put our hands by our sides, and sing O Canada.
What Canada is it when it functions, according to this Government, only by market-place principles and when it functions only between Quebec City and Windsor? Canada is much broader than that, much wider than that, and its heart beats in more places than that, and this Government does not understand.


Mr. Thacker:: Mr. Speaker, I would be interested if my colleague opposite would tell me when the provision of rail service to every Canadian became the heart of being a Canadian citizen.
Where I come from, we lost the railway when the Liberals were in power. As I recall, when the railway was set up originally the Liberals opposed it. That was back when John A. Macdonald was setting it up. Indeed, he lost an election over it. The Grits came in and did nothing about building the railway, and when John A. Macdonald came back into power, he finished it.
When did it become a fundamental part of Canadian citizenship? What about all the Canadians who fought wars and have not had a railway in terms of passenger service even since the beginning?
June 9, 1989


Brian Vincent Tobin: This is the fundamental problem with the thinking opposite. The Member wants to know when did it become a fundamental tenet that every single Canadian ought to have the main line running by his front door. There never was that tenet.
This is how the Government operates. It sets up a ridiculous argument, a nonsensical statement, and then shoots it down. No one is suggesting that every single Canadian ought to have the mail rail line running by his front door. What we are saying is that all of Canada's regions ought to be served, can be served, and should be served. If we are forward looking and believe in this country and our ability to repeat the success of high speed trains, we should at least look at the systems elsewhere in the world. There is no reason that all of Canada's regions cannot have a reasonable level of rail passenger service.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I could reconsider everything that has been said by my friend, but I would need more than 20 minutes and that would not necessarily answer the issue before us today.
When the Hon. Member referred to Newfoundland, I know in the bottom of his heart that my friend is very happy with what we did. For example, there is $800 million in Newfoundland for roads. I suggest to my friend that he make the same proposal to his neighbours in P.E.I., Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. He will see what type of reaction he will have.
The Hon. Member was referring to Europe and Japan. In terms of transportation, the worst we can do is compare Canada with a smaller country such as Japan with 100 million people. There is no comparison. Canada is a very large country with 26 million people. There is no profitable rail passenger service in the world.


Mr. Keyes:: Amtrak is close.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The TGV.


Benoît Bouchard: It is not a network. The TGV in France is one of the components of the network.


Brian Vincent Tobin: That component is profitable.


Benoît Bouchard: The network is not working in terms of profits. One only needs to talk to people in France and West Germany.
Supply


Brian Vincent Tobin: You are saying that the high speed train is not profitable? Stick to your facts. It is very profitable.


Benoît Bouchard: I did not interrupt the Hon. Member. I was very quiet when he spoke.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I will be as well.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think it is good that my colleague presented this motion today because, basically, our discussions of transportation choices must be based on realities. I said many times that I am not fundamentally or viscerally opposed to the rail passenger transportation system. We belong to the same country, we have lived in the same country for 120 years, and I think it is essential to understand that rail passenger service met some needs, particularly in the 19th century, and even until the 1950s or 1960s, essential needs that successive governments of whatever party respected. Nevertheless, people try to forget, or get away from, the reality of the situation the country is in now.
But sooner or later, this reality catches up with us. I refer, of course, Mr. Speaker, to Canada's financial situation. VIA Rail received $641 million (in subsidies) last year: that is $100 for every passenger who took the train. Every time someone boards a train for $20 or $25, it costs the government $100. This transportation system is changing considerably today. Air and road transportation in particular account for 85 per cent of all inter-city travel. Marine transportation, in provinces where this is justified, is developing and subsidies are also growing at the same time, especially for rail transport, again.
Mr. Speaker, this trend with VIA Rail-I shall speak of VIA Rail although it did not exist until 12 years ago, but today it is VIA Rail-began in the 1950s and '60s, when the use of rail passenger services started a two-third decline after reaching a peak just after the war, when highway transportation was much less developed and obviously air transportation was not as big as it is today.
In 1961-not many people know and I think the information would be useful to Hon. Members opposite-a commission of inquiry recommended exactly what we intend to do today, in other words, rationalization of rail passenger service. It was not done at the time, for political reasons. However, it is clear that if that was the situation was like that in 1961, and now, twenty-eight

June 9. 1989
Supply
years later, we have the kind of situation we have today, the Government had to act.
Since 1977, $5.4 billion have been spent. Of this amount, more than $1 billion-and this without improving equipment for the last ten years-more than $1 billion or almost $1.5 billion has gone to capital investment in an attempt to improve the quality of VIA's services.

We have to face the reality today. We could forget the Budget. We could say that there is no problem. It is funny that members of the Liberal Party and the NDP never talk about where they are going to get the money. They spend money, and there is no problem there. They could find a lot of expenditures. However, when the time comes to state from where they will get the money, they are silent. We do not hear anything. We do not know from where they will get will get the money. Everybody knows that members of the NDP have all that money. We have known that for many years. Members of the Liberal Party used to be a little more reasonable, but they are becoming no more reasonable than the NDP.
At the present time the debt represents approximately $34,000 for every household in the country. Twenty years ago the debt cost was 12 cents for every tax dollar. Today it is 35 cents. That is three times what it was approximately 15 years ago.
Everyone must play a part in controlling the debt. Those who need help the most must be protected from the ravages that uncontrolled debt would cause to those who can least defend themselves. We must control the debt to protect our legacy for our children. We believe that it has to be done within all Departments of the Government, particularly where the money that we spend does not represent the purposes for which we have expended that money.
There has been much discussion in recent weeks concerning the level of subsidies that the Government has announced in the Budget. In particular, comparisons have been made with other modes of public transportation in Canada-buses, airplanes, and so on. I would like to address in the House of Commons today the question of cuts.
| Translation}
Mr. Speaker, it would be helpful to review some facts on VIA's performance in 1988. I think that in the public interest and in the interests of Canadians and of this House, we ought to know exactly how VIA Rail is used and why we are facing so many problems.
For the system as a whole, the operating subsidy is over $500 million. Total subsidy payments, which include funding support for capital investments have risen to $641 million. I said earlier that it costs the Government $100 every time a passenger takes the train. For the most heavily travelled segment, which is commonly referred to, as my colleague said, as the Quebec-Windsor corridor, the operating subsidy is $178 million for an average of $40 per passenger.
Mr. Speaker, further afield, transcontinental services cost $198 per passenger, and services to remote areas cost $212. Every time someone takes a train in a remote area, it cost $212 per ticket.
It is interesting to note that cost recovery levels vary. The cost recovery level, Mr. Speaker, indicates our ability, when we spend $1, to recover that $1 from the fares paid by passengers.
In some regions, Mr. Speaker, that level is 13 per cent. For every dollar spent by the Government, the passenger spends 13 cents.
We can run a company like that. We can keep convincing ourselves that the need for service means that we should not consider cost increases. However, we must face the facts. Today, it is $641 million. Tomorrow, it will be $800 million. It is estimated that by the year 2000, it will cost us between $6 to $8 billion, without any expansion, just for normal operating and capital expenditures.
Mr. Speaker, Canada can no longer afford this kind of situation. With its expanding transportation network, Canada can no longer justify spending this kind of money.
Mr. Speaker, VIA Rail's results, it must be acknowledged today, are a disaster. Last week, I was accused of refusing to consider ridership rates. We do consider these rates. The ridership rate, Mr. Speaker, has increased by 13 per cent, which means that revenue has increased by about $26 million. The problem is, that expenditures have gone up 15 per cent or $94 million.
June 9, 1989

I challenge anyone to manage a business that earns $26 million and spends $94 million and to operate that business for more than one or two years. In the case of a publicly-owned enterprise, it doesn't matter. Operating a company or business when it is publicly-owned is not a problem. We can spend as much as we want without worrying about the deficit; it's not important because it's public money.
Mr. Speaker, today Canada must face financial reality because we were not in power when it was time for action. It is because the Liberal Party has, over 20 years, accumulated a debt exceeding $550 billion that Canadians must pay for it today. They did not take a position of conscience and assume their management responsibilities when it was time to do so.
Since 1984, Mr. Speaker, this Government has spent over $2.6 billion. We are accused of being dinosaurs, of not investing money. Yet, we have spent $2.6 billion since 1984, including over $1 billion in capital expenditures. We are told we have not improved equipment. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have improved equipment within our capabilities and our financial means without falling into the same trap as our predecessors and spending left and right without rhyme or reason. Back in 1976, when the present Opposition Leader (Mr. Turner) was Minister of Finance, the Government expenditure growth rate was around 29 per cent while it is between 3 and 4 per cent today. Well, we are now paying the bills they ran 10 or 12 years ago.
Mr. Speaker, rail transport is being compared to other modes of transport. As I said, it accounts for 3 per cent of total. Air transport, which is booming-we only have to look at large airports among others-accounts for 7 per cent of total. Car travel accounts for 84 per cent. Mr. Speaker, we would agree if the Government were to drop all assistance to road construction or if the provinces were to decide to freeze their budgets and concentrate on railroad transportation. However we simply cannot fly in the face of the fact that 84 per cent of Canadians going from one municipality to the next would rather take to the roads. And expansion in the trucking sector these days has to be one of the major components of a leading industry also operating from coast to coast, as much in the Maritimes and in Newfoundland as in western or central Canada. And what is
Supply
more, Mr. Speaker, twice as many people would rather travel by bus than take VIA Rail.
The figures speak for themselves, Mr. Speaker: Canadians very much prefer means of transportation other than the train, and they have proven that.
Mr. Speaker, this is why we are subsidizing to the tune of $641 million, and this is why people do not travel by train. We live in a country where people are free to decide how they travel from here to there. We have invested $5.4 billion over the past 11 or 12 years, yet the rate of utilization has declined by 20 per cent during the last nine years. It is a pattern. After World War II, ever since the early 1960's, the utilization rate of trains has been falling. Our friends opposite led this country for 20 years. When they became aware of it, they invested heavily. What was the result? An utilization rate 20 per cent lower and again enormous subsidies.
As political men and women, Mr. Speaker, we have decided to be reasonable and to tell Canadians: This is what we can afford; on the basis of available resources, these are the services we can provide you with. That is the reason why we notified VIA Rail that we would reduce its subsidies by $500 million within the next five years.
Mr. Speaker, we do not favour cars over trains. We do not feel that travelling by train is outdated. But for over 20 years now, Canadians have consistently demonstrated a lack of interest for rail transportation. As I said to my Hon. friend on several occasions, everybody wants to keep the train but nobody wants to use it. I do not know just how many times my colleagues across the floor took the train this past year.
How many times did they take the train in the last year? I am not sure whether a lot of people on the other side took the train the last year, but they want to keep it. Of course we want to keep the train, but we do not have the money, however. The Liberal Party does not care from where we get the money; it does not seem to matter. They have been spending money for 20 years. The country must face the reality of a $320 billion debt and a $58 billion deficit as was forecast by Mr. Lalonde for 1990-1991. The problem is that it does not matter to the Liberals because they do not care about money.

June 9, 1989
[Translation\
Mr. Speaker, the Government is asking VIA Rail, contrary to what my friend from Newfoundland has stated-

He knows very well that no decision has been made. He enumerated that a lot of routes will be abandoned. I am happy to know about that, because personally I have not received any document. VIA Rail is doing its homework, and that is good.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Is it all VIA Rail's fault?


Benoît Bouchard: It will have a few proposals for the Government, with recommendations. By the way, we will have the proper plan at the same time, the one by Mr. deBelleval to which the Hon. Member is referring. Mr. deBelleval is not there because he did not share the view we had. He resigned. He decided it was better to let the Government do what it had to do. My friend knows very well what I mean.
I would like to conclude by indicating that the transportation network will have to be expanded in Canada. There is no doubt about it. The Department of Transport has a budget of $3.1 billion. I believe that Canada is a country where money is well expended in terms of transportation, but we have to put forward some corrections. That is what we will do. We want to live within the reasonableness of what we are able to pay. My friend knows very well that Newfoundland is happy today because it will have $800 million-


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Government of Newfoundland wants to renegotiate the deal.


Benoît Bouchard: -for roads for the next 20 years. Newfoundlanders are happy because-


Brian Vincent Tobin: You had better come and visit Newfoundland, my friend.


Benoît Bouchard: -they know very well that to put money into a transportation mode which is not used any more, a mode which is not what Canadians want, would not be wise or good for the future of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being eleven o'clock, the House will now proceed to statements pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. 0. 31
[Stage Direction]
fEnglish]

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the attention of the House to the Government's latest bungling of fisheries management in Atlantic Canada. For almost two weeks the under 45-foot fleet of groundfishermen in Prince Edward Island were subjected to an unheard of 2,000 pound daily trip limit. How ridiculous. With a catch of 2,000 pounds fishermen were not even covering costs let alone making any money. At the beginning of May there was a glut of landings in the eastern Gulf. The quota was reduced to 12,000 pounds. Although the glut was cleared, the quota was reduced further to 2,000 pounds. Where was the logic in this drastic measure? The fish were more than plentiful, but the fishermen were not allowed to catch them.
Yes, the quota has been partially restored. But what about the major losses the fishermen incurred during the near two-week period? Can the Minister explain to the House and to Prince Edward Island fishermen-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Armed Forces has its first women fighter pilots. Captains Deanna Brasseur and Jane Foster have successfully completed a seven-month basic fighter pilots' course at Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake.
The intense training course involved academics, air combat, manoeuvring tactics and weapons deployment.
Following the graduation ceremony on Saturday, June 10, Captain Brasseur will join a NATO squadron and Captain Foster will join a NORAD squadron, both in Cold Lake.
June 9, 1989

I am told these two women will be the only women pilots in the world in an operational fighter squadron.
The pilots of this House of Commons wish them well, with just a bit of envy, because there is only one seat we would like to sit in as much as our parliamentary seat, and that is a seat in a CF-18.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, when protests cut across party lines, we know that something serious is wrong. So it is very significant that all four Atlantic Premiers, Conservative and Liberal, have formed a common front to attack how the Budget is hitting Atlantic Canada.
Yesterday we learned about the latest blow to Atlantic Canada. The Western Diversification Office will be able to keep helping large firms in that part of the country, while the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency has had to put strict regulations on any help to big companies in Atlantic Canada. This means footloose firms will be bribed to go west rather than to the poorer Atlantic provinces, hardly what fair regional development should be about.
The Atlantic Premiers have requested a meeting with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). We believe this should take place urgently.


AVIATION
Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, the headlines say: "Balloons stampede herd".
Hot air balloons are much more frightening to livestock than engine powered aircraft or vehicles, which can be seen and heard approaching and leaving the vicinity. When the burner ignites on the balloon to give more altitude, it frequently fires with a loud bang, like a gun. As in western movies when the rustlers fired their guns overhead, herds frequently stampede.
This past week, 17 balloons passed over several livestock farms in central Ontario. One balloon, bearing the
Kodak logo, had its burner started directly over a herd. In just one of the frightened herds, 107 calves less than six weeks old, 160 cows, some close to giving birth, all stampeded. By some miracle, none of the young calves were trampled.
Last year a similar balloon caused a stampede on a nearby farm, and a very pregnant cow had to be destroyed. The unborn calf was saved by Caesarean section.
I urge the Government to properly regulate hot air balloons, balloonists to start policing themselves, and pilots to be more considerate of livestock and property.
[DOT]k *k


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, there are some 4,500 students from China in Canada at this moment and we recognize that this is a particularly tragic time for them. There are 110 studying at York University, located in my riding of York Centre.
They have sent to me letters and petitions with hundreds of signatures. I have brought them to the House, and I hope Members will want to examine them, urging the strongest condemnation of their Government.
I want to talk about the situation of these students. The Government of Canada has agreed to suspend for at least a two-month period removals to China under the Immigration Act. But there is more that can be done to help these students from China in this time of crisis.
An indefinite extension of student visas would help ameliorate the current state of uncertainty and anxiety which they feel. Similarly, there are financial problems created for these students because financial support for them which has been coming from China may not be forthcoming or continue.
I urge the Government of Canada to make representations to the provinces of our countiy in order to obtain foreign student fee exemptions or deferments for these students. Finally, the question of political asylum must be considered by the Government and would be appropriate given-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member.

June 9, 1989


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker. Penhold is a small town of about 1,500 people located about 20 kilometres south of Red Deer. Last weekend I had the opportunity to meet with provincial and civic leaders from Penhold, Innisfail, and Red Deer to discuss the formation of a committee to look into ways to offset the impact of the reductions at Canadian Forces Base Penhold.
This committee met again on Wednesday of this week. Calling themselves the Penhold Economic Revitalization Committee, they are going to investigate the full impact of the reductions, discuss alternatives, and develop a plan for the future, using the resources of the Community Futures Program. I salute the constructive spirit shown by these community leaders. They are not shouting and wildly protesting, nor are they sitting back hoping for a miracle cure. They are translating their concerns into concrete, positive action. Their sights are set on the future of their community. I give them my full support. Their dedication bodes well for the future of Penhold.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, in committee yesterday, when I questioned the Minister responsible for the status of women, she said that REAL women, according to anecdotal evidence she had, had misused public funds.
This was in relation to an REAL conference funded by the Government in which the credibility of every female Supreme Court Justice was apparently attacked, simply because they were women; and serious misinformation about child care, about women in the military, and about lesbians and gay men was disseminated.
Since that conference, I have received copies of letters from the Secretary of State (Mr. Weiner) justifying the funding of the conference, stating that the funding was in every way consistent with the Government's equality criteria.
The Secretary of State refuses to acknowledge that working for equality does not mean telling people that children in child care will become partial psychopaths.
I hope he will at least listen to his own status of women Minister-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the federal program to assist local community development provides major support for the Abitibi economy.
The Senneterre business assistance centre, which covers Barraute, Lebel-sur-Quevillon, Malartic and Senneterre, has just presented its fourth annual report.
Since its first year, the centre has invested $1,700,000, generating $8,200,000 of investment and $25,500,000 of business and creating 90 jobs and maintaining 143, for a grand total of 233 jobs.
The 1989-90 plan shows no slowdown because 123 jobs are to be created during this period with a subsidy of $879,000, generating total investments of $3,900,000.
Mr. Speaker, that is the excellent work done by general manager Jean G. Gobeil and his staff under chairman Louis Marie Dubreuil and members of the board of directors.


FISHERIES
Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I was informed that earlier this week, off Fogo Island, Newfoundland, a French factory trawler harassed several Newfoundland inshore fishermen in their much smaller fishing boats. This vessel, registered in St. Malo, France, came dangerously close to these
June 9, 1989

fishermen and, in at least two cases, destroyed their fishing gear.
Seeing such foreign fishermen as these on the prime inshore fishing grounds is a thorn in the side of Newfoundlanders. The sophistication of these vessels, their size and capability, gives them an unfair advantage.
As if this were not enough, they add insult to injury by disregarding Canadian law and the rights and privileges of Canadian citizens in our own territorial waters. Newfoundland fishermen do not need foreign harassment to add to their litany of existing problems, and they certainly cannot afford to have expensive fishing gear destroyed.
I ask that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon), in conjunction with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), ensure that this incident is thoroughly investigated, that decisive action is taken, and that the fishermen involved are fully compensated in a timely manner.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Brian White (Dauphin -Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, osteoporosis is a bone condition that afflicts 800,000 Canadian women. A new recent program in Canada, involving a minimum of $10 million has been announced by Glaxo Canada and Allelix Biopharmaceuticals.
It is GLAXO Canada's first venture into discovery research in Canada while Allelk is one of Canada's major players in biotechnology.
I quote Mr. Jacques Lapointe, GLAXO president: "Bill C-22 was the major motivator in our decision to become involved in discovery research. Had it not been for patent protection, GLAXO would not have considered such research activities in Canada."
However, new Canadian research is not the only benefit of Bill C-22. With the new Prices Review Board, the prices of all drugs will now be monitored, not just the 7 per cent of drugs that are profitable enough to attract generic copies.
StatsCanada has shown that the wholesale prices of pharmaceuticals rose by only 3.8 per cent from January, 1988 to January, 1989, compared to a CPI of 4.3 per cent. Bill C-22 is working.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, in January, 1989, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) promised that "where environmental considerations will conflict with economic ones, the environment will prevail."
In March, 1989, this same Minister assured Canadians of his Government's commitment to the environment, stating "I'm having intensive discussions with the Finance Minister and I have been assured that environmental concerns will hold a major part of his next Budget."
Yet, yesterday, in this House, the Environment Minister was forced to acknowledge the hollow nature of these commitments when he admitted that "the position of the Government is that environmental review process does not create any legal obligation for the Government to submit to a prior assessment of budget decisions", and "the Budget is at the heart of the Government's actions. . .It does not have to preceded by an environmental assessment."
In fancy speeches and on international delegations, the Government says one thing. When it comes to the crunch, they turn around and say the opposite. Canadians care about the environment. They are tired of the Government's rhetoric and want real action on the environment. It is long past time for the Government to take its environmental commitments seriously and to put some substance behind its endorsement of the Brund-tland Commission report and sustainable development.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the week just ending was very important for all Canadians. As you know, it was National Environment Week. Mr. Speaker, the

June 9, 1989
environment is a priority for this Government, as the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) showed again yesterday in Montreal when he signed a most significant agreement with his Quebec counterpart to clean up the St. Lawrence River.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote the Minister's words, which indeed reflect the Conservative Government's policy: In the past, companies profited by polluting the environment and only the shareholders shared these profits. The time has come for these companies to contribute to environmental protection. The people do not want speeches or public relations operations. They want concrete action and that is what the Conservative Government will do, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
^


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, last weekend I met with the Algoma dairy farmers concerning the threat to the future of supply management and marketing board systems for Canadian dairy industry as a result of the Government's action. The Government agreed in April of 1989 to freeze the income of Canadian dairy farmers until 1991 at the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, even for domestically consumed dairy products.
At the same time, the European Economic Community farmers have made an arrangement for their dairy producer returns to go up. The United Kingdom farmers have increased the price of their milk and dairy products by 3 per cent, and reduced the producer levies by 25 per cent. The net result is that the income of Canadian dairy producers can go down for the next 20 months but cannot go up, regardless of input costs.
I call on the Government to keep its election promise to maintain the supply management and marketing board systems that we have in Canada for dairy' products and other farm products.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, in Question Period yesterday I was greatly alarmed at what appeared to be reports of a nuclear warhead having detonated in the waters between the Queen Charlotte Islands and Vancouver Island. I asked myself, can this be true? Of course it was not. Instead, it was just another attempt at fearmongering by a Member of the New Democratic Party.
For the record, the cause of the explosion to which the Hon. Member referred was not a nuclear warhead but a dummy warhead which caused no contamination.
Furthermore the incident to which she referred happened 39 years ago. It was made public eight years ago.
We are all concerned and indeed frightened about the prospects of nuclear explosions in Canada or elsewhere. We are all concerned about the presence of nuclear waste in our oceans. However, throwing out red herrings, as the Hon. Member did yesterday, serves no useful purpose. The issues before us demand we remain calm, remain cool and remain rational. Generating fear may get attention but it does not get respect.


THE FAMILY
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to see us cut across Party lines again. There are hundreds of missing children in Canada today. There is an equivalent number of parents that must suffer the horror of not knowing where their children are or in what situation they are living.
Groups such as the Missing Children's Network provide an invaluable service in their struggle to reunite children with their families.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Missing Children's Network will have to close in November if the Government refuses to give it financial assistance. These funds
June 9, 1989

are essential for the survival of this indispensable organization.
I ask the Government to open up the purse strings and give the necessary money so that the Missing Children's Network can continue its fight against the problem of missing children in Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle -Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
The Conference Board of Canada has stated in a study that the new sales tax will reduce the disposable income of Canadians by $5.5 billion; will cause the loss of 72,000 jobs; will increase inflation to 7.3 per cent; will increase taxes to an incredible extent and consequently will have a very negative impact on the Canadian economy as a whole.
I want to ask the Minister how he can possibly introduce this new tax at a time when the threat of a recession is greater than it ever has been in the last seven years.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the Hon. Member that there was a unanimous report of the Finance Committee of this House, just a shade over a year ago, which supported the removal of the existing sales tax and the replacement by the Government with the new sales tax comparable to what we are proposing in the goods and services tax.
The Hon. Member referred to a Conference Board report. We have some differences with the analysis of the Board's report. We do not believe that it gives sufficient regard to the very positive impact on investment. This new tax is equivalent to a 4 per cent investment tax credit. We do not believe that it gives sufficient regard to the benefits that this tax will have on the service industry by removing the tax on business inputs. The combination of those factors is going to improve the efficiency of the Canadian economy.
Oral Questions
Our conclusions are that there will be an improvement in jobs in year one. There will be an improvement in economic output in year one. The benefits are quite clear in the introduction of this tax. This is the replacement of a tax which everybody in Canada says is a very major drag on our economy.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, let us have no red herrings. First, the report which the Minister refers to was not on his proposal.
Second, for God's sake, Mr. Speaker, let us not compare the credibility as a result of the events of the last month of this Government and this Minister with the Conference Board of Canada.
During the election campaign, the Minister stated in a speech in which he called his opponents liars that, and I quote: "Canadians will not pay a penny of additional tax as a result of the sales tax proposal".
The Minister states: "Not one penny". The Conference Board says $2.7 billion of additional tax a year.
The Minister said on at least 100 occasions that the tax will be revenue neutral. I quote from the Conference Board which states that: "The 9 per cent tax is not revenue neutral".
How does this Minister justify breaking another campaign commitment by the Conservative Party? How does the Minister justify breaking his word?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, before the Hon. Member gets so excited about this I would suggest that he wait until we see the technical paper that will be coming out at the end of June this year.
I am going to say something which is critical of the Conference Board report. It does not have all the information. Nor does the Hon. Member have all the information.
We have indicated in the brochure entitled The Goods and Services Tax that there are going to be some offsets for housing. There will be some offsets for the small business sector.
The Conference Board does not have the information.

June 9. 1989
Oral Questions
There is other information that the Conference Board does not have that supports the position that we have taken all along in this case. This information will become available and the Hon. Member will see it at the end of June or thereabouts when we provide this information for him.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister reproaches me for getting excited. I am excited because I am worried about $5.5 billion that is being taken out of the hands of Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: I am excited because I am worried about the poorer regions of this country, as perhaps the Minister ought to be.
At a time when the Government is withdrawing from regional development and is withdrawing from unemployment insurance, how can the Minister justify imposing a tax which discriminates against Atlantic Canada, northern Ontario, western Canada and the Province of Quebec? How does this Minister justify in the name of Heaven imposing a tax which the Conference Board states: "will take the most money out of the hands of poorest Canadians"? That is why I am excited.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I stated in my first answer where we have differences with the Conference Board report. I stand by those statements. I think that they are valid. They will be elaborated upon in the analysis of the Department of Finance which will be made available in the latter part of this month.
I also refer the Hon. Member to page 18 of the brochure entitled The Goods and Services Tax. There is a bar chart there which shows that every province, every region of the country is favourably impacted by the imposition of this new sales tax and the replacement of the existing sales tax which is widely regarded as being a drag on the economy.


Ms. Copps:: You are a drag on the economy.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member has just said that this tax is going to impose a heavier burden on those who are least able to bear that burden. I remind the Hon. Member that there is going to be a generous
refundable sales tax credit. Our goal, as set out in the brochure, is that families earning less than $30,000 will be better off as a result of the reform of the sales tax system.


OFFSHORE RESOURCES
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. A quote in The Globe and Mail this morning states that the modules for the Hibernia construction platform could be constructed outside Canada, "although that would reduce the project's industrial benefits for Newfoundland and other provinces."
The only thing we were getting from the Government was industrial benefits-three million person hours of industrial benefits. We gave up the retail sales tax. We will not receive a cent in retail sales tax. Our royalties start off at 1 per cent. The only thing that we were guaranteed was industrial benefits. Now the Minister is saying that he is considering allowing Mobil to go back on that commitment.
Is this not just the latest Tory broken promise to the people of Newfoundland? How can the Minister, a Minister with integrity, associate himself with a Government that continually breaks its commitments to people who have the highest unemployment rate anywhere in the country?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, 1 respect the Hon. Member. I say to him, as I said to the people of Newfoundland yesterday, I discussed the Hibernia deal with them very fairly. I obviously cannot go through all of the principal issues involved in Question Period. However, let me give the Hon. Member some of the salient points.
First, the federal Government sticks by its commitment on Hibernia. That includes our financial commitment.


Mr. Nault:: For how long?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: There is no time limit. Perhaps the Liberals have one, we do not.


Mr. Simmons:: You did before. What happened to
March 31?
June 9, 1989


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I think that this is serious enough to deal with the Hon. Member in the manner in which I have done in the past.
Second, I said to the people of Newfoundland that if one looks at the statement of principles I would try to maximize the industrial benefits for Newfoundland, but also that we have to make sure that we have a project which is as economically viable as possible.
Last-and I am not trying to violate the time of the House-when I met with the new Minister of the Government of Newfoundland yesterday, I said that the federal Government stuck by its commitments. We would co-operate in whatever way possible. We also said that what we are attempting to do is to bring Hibernia on stream as quickly and as early as possible. Any interpretation to the contrary is not in keeping with what I discussed.
The article that appeared in The Globe and Mail today is accurate as to what I said and how it should have been interpreted.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, the Minister said that the Government has no time limit. That is not accurate. The time limit was last March. The time limit has expired. We have a time limit. The Government had one and did not keep it.
Because he says that it is a serious problem, and it is, I wish to quote to him the words of the Prime Minister who said in St. John's on July 19, 1988: "This has been the dream of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for decades. Today, the dream has been realized."
This is a province that has the highest unemployment rate in the country. What we want are jobs, not handouts from the Government of Canada. It is dismantling the unemployment insurance system. We do not want unemployment insurance, we want jobs. I want a commitment from the Minister today. If the Minister will not stand up and fight for jobs in the fishing industry, will he fight for jobs in the oil industry?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I said in Newfoundland yesterday. That is what I am saying in the House today.
Oral Questions
I said yesterday that the time for rhetoric is over, let us make sure that the deal works. The deal has three components to it. The Government of Newfoundland and the Government of Canada, in my mind, are totally in agreement in terms of maximizing industrial benefits. The consortia wants the deal to go forward. Obviously, there is one question relating to the topside. With respect to the gravity base structure, as the Hon. Member knows, there have been some tenders let on the GBS and on other parts of Hibernia.
What I am saying to the Hon. Member and to the people of Newfoundland is that we have to find an agreement about industrial benefits, getting Hibernia moving forward and having the best technology we can have. If we do not do that we will have a situation in which there might not be other development as quickly because of the cost factor.
My only concern is to move Hibernia forward, to do it as cost effectively as possible and to maximize the benefits for Newfoundland. I do not see how the Hon. Member in any way could have any difficulty with those principles.


THE ECONOMY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He will be well aware that the report of the Conference Board of Canada, an ally up to this point, has pointed out not only will the massive national sales tax imposition see 72,000 jobs lost, inflation increased to over 7 per cent, a reduction in economic growth with certain sectors such as tourism being hard hit, but also a major tax hike for Canadians which the Board estimates will be a $4 billion net increase in the first two years.
In light of a response to a previous question I want to remind the Minister that during the election campaign he had this to say: "The bottom line is that the sales tax will not be used to raise the revenues of the Government of Canada".
Does the Minister plan to keep the promise that he made to the people of Canada during that election campaign that this would be neutral revenue in terms of income?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 9. 1989
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that question in response to one of the previous questions.
Let me just comment on some of the things. On job loss and economic growth our calculations, according to the Department of Finance study on this matter, show that in year one there will be an improvement in jobs in Canada and also in economic growth. Our calculations on inflation are roughly the same as in the Conference Board study.
We also disagree with the conclusions on the service sector. We attach a greater degree of importance to the removal of tax on business inputs for the service sector and believe that the service sector, as is indicated on page 16 of this brochure. The Goods and Services Tax, will have an increase in output greater than the national average increase in output. There is a difference.
As far as the question on this being a major tax hike, to use the Hon. Member's words, I indicated in a previous answer that the Conference Board simply does not have the information-


Roger Simmons: Blenkarn does.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke):: -that we have within the Department of Finance to come to that conclusion. At the end of this month when we release the technical paper, the Hon. Member will see that, yes, we are in fact correct.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister will offer to table those reports to which he has just referred.


NATIONAL SALES TAX
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister.
Does the Minister plan to keep the promise he made during the election campaign when he said that the national sales tax would not be used to raise additional revenues? While he is responding to that, could he also confirm that his office is in the process, at this moment, of assembling and staffing up a propaganda office with a multi-million dollar budget at the moment to convince people, using the big lie technique, that this is in their best interest?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, surely the Hon. Member would like us to put
out documents-


Roger Simmons: Don't leak them.


Geoff Wilson: -like this one which set out clearly the assessment of the Department of Finance of the impact of this tax. It states how the tax works. It has the economic impact. It shows how the existing tax is a drag on the Canadian economy. The existing tax that was widely criticized by the Finance Committee, of which two of his colleagues were members in the last Parliament, is being replaced.
Furthermore, we are introducing a refundable sales tax credit which is more generous in this new tax and that should be widely regarded and widely praised by members of his Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMPACT ON BUSINESS INVESTMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, is there something wrong with the Minister's hearing? I have asked him whether he would indicate in this House if he plans to keep the promise to the people of Canada that he made during the election campaign. Second, I asked him to confirm that he is in the process of setting up a propaganda office to convince people that this imposition is good for them.
While he is responding, hopefully to those two questions, will he also indicate clearly that the removal of the 13.5 per cent manufacturers' tax as of January 1, 1991 means business investment in terms of new plants and new equipment will not take place between now and then; in a sense that the impact of this national sales tax will not begin in 1991 but in fact will begin to be felt this summer?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me respond to what I think are three questions. The answer to the first one is yes. I have said that we are going to bring in a new goods and services tax which will replace the existing sales tax and will have income tax offsets, including the refundable sales tax credit to which I have just referred. After that there will be no additional money for the Government of Canada. That answers question number one.
Question number two, yes, in fact, we are going to be releasing a technical paper and other forms of information for Canadians so that they can understand what the
June 9, 1989

goods and services tax will do, why it is good for the economy, what impact it will have on various sectors and regions of the country, and so on.
The third question is on business investment. Our estimates are that there will be a significant increase in business investment as a result of this tax. It is equivalent, as I have said previously, to a 4 per cent investment tax credit. However, we believe that the transition to this new tax will not upset business investment over the next two years.


ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Once again the Government's negligent handling of the $200 million offshore development trust in Nova Scotia has reared its ugly head and caused new controversy.
Given that the Prime Minister said in this House on Wednesday in response to the latest controversy that it was "a proper investment of public funds", could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what assessments were done on these projects to ensure as per the federal legislation that they were offshore oil and gas related?
Did this process also include seeking the concurrence and approval of members of the federal Cabinet from Nova Scotia, or was this Government so negligent as to hand the Nova Scotia Government a blank cheque with no strings attached?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member's question, I know he alluded only to one of the controversies that has been raised by the Opposition in the House this week on the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Agreement. If the Hon. Member does some closer checking, he will find that the widening of the Stellerton-Chief Harbour Highway is well within the responsibility and daily work of a highway department. I will also say-


An Hon. Member:: What happens when you hit the river?


Roger Simmons: Go and have a look at it.
Oral Questions


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Do you want an answer?


Brian Vincent Tobin: The truth.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I am giving you the truth, Brian.


Mr. Charest:: Mr. Speaker, order.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You know better than that.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: No, I don't think he does know better than that. It is the same old Tobin.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: If the Hon. Member checks the record it will be veiy clear. When the Public Accounts Committee meets, I believe on June 26 and June 27 and this issue is before it, it will find that the widening of the highway was done both properly and legally, and I think the facts will bear that out.


Ronald MacDonald: This Member is not opposed to proper development in Nova Scotia, but I am opposed to the abuse and misuse of this trust to benefit the friends of the Government such as the $2.5 million real estate development that was outlined in the Auditor General's report in December.


PUBLIC INQUIRY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is again to the Deputy Prime Minister. Given that the Auditor General continues to stand by his statements concerning this fund and its misuse, will the Government now consent to a full, open, and public inquiry into the disposition of this fund, or will the Government continue to be a willing accomplice in the cover-up of the pillaging and mismanagement of the Canada-Nova Scotia offshore development fund?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member can clarify to the House what projects he is in favour of and what projects he is not. I understand that the ones that are in the Liberal ridings are quite okay-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -such as the Sydport International Free Trade Zone, the North Sydney Industrial Park, Highway 125, the Sydport Access Road, the Woodside Ferry and related infrastructure, St. Martha's Hospital, Northside Industrial Park, Phase II, Cossit Heights Park, Highway 107, East Petpeswick Bridge, and Metro Computer Traffic Control. Those are all projects that are
COMMONS DEBArES
June 9.1989
Oral Questions
funded out of this program in Nova Scotia. Are you in favour of those or are you against those too?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It sounds as if the Deputy Prime Minister is using a list of projects to cover up those they cannot defend on proper grounds.


POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister about the defence. A key element in the defence which the Minister of Public Works has given against conflict of interest was the Minister's claim on Wednesday that there was no benefit, but that in fact there was a detrimental effect to adjoining land owned by him from the road paid for out of the government fund for which he is now responsible.
What was it that convinced the Prime Minister that the Minister of Public Works would not benefit from a road built partly on land for which he was paid out of the fund, which provides improved access to vast holdings of the Minister alongside the road, and which is also used by Scott Paper to execute a business deal between the Minister's company and Scott Paper?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Hon. Member does not want to leave an impression that I think does not bear to fact. Let us look at that.
Let us look at the widening of the highway. He refers to the Minister and a family member. As I say, the details can come out at the Public Accounts Committee or another time. It was approximately one hectare each, approximately an acre. I think any of us who know anything about highways and the broadening of a highway know that if you take a certain strip of land ten feet or five feet for the broadening, whatever it was, you can very quickly runs up a hectare or a half hectare of land.
Let us not characterize this as if there was some great amount of land that through expropriation was sold or that a flip was made in order that the Minister would receive some money. I think the Hon. Member should re-examine how he is phrasing that in order that wrong impressions are not left.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Minister has obviously missed my point.


REQUEST FOR INDEPENDENT INQUIRY
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, how could the Minister argue that he would not be a beneficiary of the widening of that road, considering how much adjacent land he owns? If he was able to, as he said, convince the Prime Minister that he did not benefit from the widening of that road, will the Government agree to an independent inquiry to look into the impact of that widened road, that $9 million expenditure, on the value of the Minister's adjoining land?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have given the details as they have been brought to me. I say to the Hon. Member that all of us, and especially cabinet Ministers, operate and function as we should under very strict conflict of interest guidelines.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Do you observe them?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Yes, we do observe them. That is not right. I think the Hon. Member should remember that the land in question has been held by that family for a long period of time. There are Members on all sides of this House who I am sure have held property for a long period of time.
I am sure there are provincial projects that have gone past that land. There are federal projects that have affected Members' land.
The point that has to be made is very clear. It was done under the legal expropriation agreement of Nova Scotia. I say to the Hon. Member: "Don't use the argument of vast holdings and somehow leave the impression, when half a hectare is going to be affected, that somehow there was a great benefit to the Hon. Minister".
One generally finds that farmers and landholders do not like to give up land for a public works.


TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina - Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport a question. He told the committee on Wednesday that he does not have the VIA Rail business report or business plan and therefore he cannot decide anything. All the rest of us know about the plan, that the luture of VIA Rail is on the line, and that the Budget is already being implemented by VIA Rail. One of our offices tried to make reservations after for October 15 in Atlantic Canada and
June 9, 1989

was told that no reservations were being accepted after October 15. Will the Minister confirm that all VIA Rail trains will still be rolling after October 15 and that Canadians will still be able to use one of their great institutions, railway passenger service?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the difference between the Member and myself is that he is satisfied with a leaked document. I am not. Normally, I use official documents from Crown corporations.
As to the reservation, Mr. Speaker, if the Member wants an answer he just has to ask VIA Rail.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We did ask them and they said: "no reservations".


REFERENCE OF VIA RAIL BUSINESS PLAN TO COMMITTEE
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, since VIA Rail was submitting a business report under Mr. deBelleval and now that it is submitting a business report under Mr. Lawless, the President of the CN, the coyote in charge of the chicken coop, are we to take it that there are two reports? Will he give a commitment not to allow the implementation of any VIA Rail business plan until after the plan has been referred to the Standing Committee on Transport that will travel across Canada to get the views of Canadians?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I will not give any commitment. The Member knows that VIA Rail is operating its day to day operations. We announced recently that there was a fare increase of 15 per cent. It could happen again. There is no commitment which has to be given as long as I do not receive the report by VIA Rail.
Once again, we can use the document you used: it is usual for NDP to work with leaked documents, but it is not usual for the Government.
Oral Questions NATIONAL REVENUE


RESULTS OF PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY ON TAX RETURNS
Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, a public opinion survey yesterday suggested that 65 per cent of Canadians needed assistance in filing their income tax returns this year because they found them too difficult to complete.
Given the Government's attempts to simplify taxation for average Canadians, I wonder if the Minister of National Revenue could explain yesterday's alarming survey.


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, although Gallup polled some 1,016 people on this issue, our most recent statistics and factual information involve some 17,388,795 Canadian taxpayers. These figures categorically conclude that there has been virtually no change from previous years in Canadians going outside for paid tax assistance. It remains virtually at the same level that it has been over previous years, at some 29 per cent.
Further, we have been able to process, up until this Monday, 12,623,000 returns, which is way ahead of last year. We have refunded over 10 million cheques with an average refund of $662 per Canadian. I think Canadians have responded very well to tax reform.


ACID RAIN
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau -La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment, I suppose I should direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. The governors of the Northeastern States, the Premiers of the Atlantic Provinces and the Premier of Quebec are meeting in Montebello to discuss some important issues, including acid rain. The Premier of Quebec suggested Canada approve a measure, probably a joint measure, to control nitrogen oxide emissions in exhaust gases. Is your colleague the Minister prepared to endorse today, or as soon as possible, Mr. Bourassa's proposal regarding one of the major causes of acid rain?

June 9, 1989
Oral Questions


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to remind the Member and advise the Elouse that of course Canada has already made some very significant steps with respect to the reduction of acid rain and with respect to domestic production of it. As the Hon. Member knows, there is a program in place which will lead to a 50 per cent reduction from 1980 allowable emissions.
As the Hon. Member also knows, tighter emission controls are in place with respect to automobiles. This Government accelerated the program to reduce use of leaded gasoline to 1990. I think the program announcement will receive the support of all Members of the House.
However, as the Hon. Member also knows, the greatest source of acid rain in this country originates not here but in the United States. I think all the evidence indicates that there is some reason for optimism because of the program which we anticipate the President of the United States will introduce into Congress perhaps early next week. We hope that will lead to an accord. If the House works together to ensure that this accord will be in the best interests of all Canadians, we will get the type of control we have needed for a long, long time.


AMERICAN LEGISLATION ON ACID RAIN
Mark Joseph Assad: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I realize that we have to tighten controls, but I suggest that the proposed legislation in California could be considered here. It is very much more rigid than what we have here.
The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned tight domestic controls. At this very moment the Americans are preparing their own legislation on acid rain. The governors are viewing first-hand the death of maple trees in the region I represent, and I have visited the area in the past.
Perhaps the member could convey this fact to the Minister. If we want tougher domestic controls, and we know the Americans are preparing their own legislation, is this not the opportune time to show political will to our neighbours to the south that we intend to correct the problems of acid rain in this country? If we can send the Americans a signal through strict and rigid legislation in
the House, they will get the message and we would be on the right road if we had the political will to do it.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, first, I remind the Hon. Member that problems such as acid rain are not problems which have originated in this country since 1984. They have originated over an extended period of time. If the Hon. Member is willing to be honest, he would concede the fact that there has been more progress with respect to acid rain and reduction of emissions since 1984 than there was in the previous administration.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: I would also suggest to the Hon. Member that Canada, this Government, and I would include all of Parliament in that process, have provided a significant amount of leadership. I believe that we have led the United States and that we will see some fruits of that leadership in the announcement next week.
*k *k *k


SPACE INDUSTRY
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. He must have been as shocked as I was to hear the Prime Minister talk about replacing scientists as easily as buying a new car.
Does the Prime Minister not know that it is the overwhelming opinion of the scientific community and of the space industry that this country faces a crisis in the supply of qualified people for the space program?
Has the Prime Minister even read the report of a standing committee of this House which stated that there was a critical shortage of space scientists and engineers?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, whenever a new agency is established or there is movement of an agency, we are bound to lose some people in that move.
What is important for us, and indeed for all Members of the House, is to ensure that that move is made as effectively as possible and that the people involved in the move are given as much support as they possibly can
June 9. 1989

be given. That is exactly what the space agency is now trying to do.


POSITION OF GOVERNMENT
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is obviously totally unaware of what has been going on, the lack of information made available to these scientists, and the total disregard for their concerns.
Does the Government, as the Prime Minister seemed to indicate on Wednesday, really think it is unCanadian to be concerned about your family, your children's education, your career, and the program to which you have devoted your life?
Why is the Prime Minister insulting those people who have proved their commitment to Canada through their whole life's work? When will he address their problems instead of insulting them?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, discussions have been ongoing as late as yesterday in terms of how this move could be effected with the minimum disruption to the people concerned. There have been special discussions concerning how we are actually to help the people move.
The people of St. Hubert and the South Shore have a committee organized to welcome the people. The universities in the Montreal area have all been anxious to participate in helping those scientists, particularly helping them to get appointments on the staffs of the universities. These discussions are going on and are proceeding.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ANDY BRANDT. LEADER OF THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF ONTARIO
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Members the presence in our gallery today of Mr. Andy Brandt, Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario.


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


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION OF EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARIANS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I also wish to draw to the attention of Members the presence in our gallery of a delegation of European parliamentarians, members of the Subcommittee on Transatlantic Trade Relations of the North Atlantic Assembly, led by Mr. Robert McCrindle.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the statement yesterday by the Minister for External Relations that human rights records are not considered when making foreign aid decisions.
This contradicts stated government policy and Canada's focus at the recent Francophonie summit in Dakar where the Prime Minister stated "human rights are inseparable and indispensable from development".
Does the Government have a policy relating to human rights records in foreign assistance? When will the platitudes end and action begin?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, two points: the name is the Francophone Summit.
The second point I would like to make is that I think the Hon. Member owes it to the House to quote correctly what the Minister for External Relations stated.
The Minister for External Relations stated that there is a human rights component in the judgments that are taken by the Canadian International Development Agency. She made the point that already in the last 12 months there has been a decision taken with respect to Haiti that was taken on human rights grounds.
She was asked a question as to whether in the allocation of budget cuts to the aid program there was going to be account taken in that process of the human rights situation. She stated that the process by which the

June 9. 1989
Oral Questions
Government is committed to reviewing human rights matters occurs later in the year. It will occur in October or November of the year.
That is what the Minister for External Relations stated. It is quite different from what the Hon. Member alleged. It is entirely consistent, not simply with the actions and statements of this Government at the Francophone Summit and elsewhere, but also with the recommendations of an all-Party committee of this House.


FOREIGN AID BUDGET CUTS
Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, given the enormous cuts to the foreign aid budget and the Government's assurances that foreign aid will be made more effective, can the Minister assure the House that the Government will immediately make human rights records a criterion for granting foreign aid, immediately?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member is more accustomed to dealing with issues that are 29 or 30 years old. She asked for us to do it immediately. We did it last year.
* >k =k


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation, my question is for the Acting Minister. The Minister and the Government will know of the very serious allegations in the media and in the Canadian Press report whereby the common law spouse of the Director of Materials and Services Contracting Division of Canada Post has allegedly received a lucrative contract to sell $8 million worth of computers to Canada Post Corporation.
Given that that information has been known in the media and by others for some weeks now, has the Government had an opportunity to review the case and to report to the House concerning the very serious allegation in question?


William C. Winegard: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have been in touch with the Canada Post Corporation and it informed us that it has, as one would expect, a well established set of guidelines with respect to conflict of interest. I am informed that it has followed those guidelines to the letter in this case, as it does in other cases.


Sheila Maureen Copps: They better rewrite them, then.


REQUEST TO KNOW IF CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the acting Minister responsible for Canada Post. From the answer the Minister just gave, we know that the conflict of interest guidelines are apparently being followed at this time. Did the Minister or the Government check whether the conflict of interest guidelines were followed at the time the contract was awarded?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by Canada Post that not only does it have a set of conflict of interest guidelines but, as far as it is concerned, in this particular instance the corporation says that they set a good example of how to conduct business.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There will be one further question. The Hon. Member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.
Jk *k sk


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
On May 3 last the Minister told the House that the reason he had not signed the soil and water conservation accord and soil agreements with Saskatchewan was that he wanted to ensure that they complied with all the criteria. The agreements for Saskatchewan, along with the agreements for Alberta, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick, are on the Minister's desk awaiting his signature. There are no negotiations presently taking
June 9. 1989

place. In fact the provinces have received final approvals. To what criteria is the Minister referring and when will these agreements be signed?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Eton. Member has his facts wrong. He mentioned Alberta. I am going to be talking to the Minister of Agriculture in Alberta on Monday about the soil and water conservation program. There are still some outstanding details with respect to it. I hope that they will be cleared up soon.


POINTS OF ORDERS
Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to bring to your attention an exchange that occurred during Question Period between the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Hon. Member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte. I think words were said that were not in keeping with the usual practice of this House, nor in keeping with the habits of the Hon. Member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte in this House. I think it would be appropriate, if he were offered the opportunity, for him to withdraw those comments.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, if this Minister were as quick off the mark a year ago, we would not have had the embarrassment of Seoul, as he is in trying to be quick off the mark for no purpose in the House. What the Member said, and I submit that the intervention is political and not serious, was "tell the truth" and what the Minister replied was "I am telling the truth". I do not know what is the problem.


Jean J. Charest: If the Member needs to have it spelled out to him because he cannot understand any further, his reply was "That's not probable that he is telling the truth". I understand that is the context-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair did not hear the words. Therefore if it is acceptable to Members, we will have a took at the "blues". If something was said that was unacceptable, I am sure the Member from Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte will withdraw it. Perhaps we could leave it at that for now.
Statements by Ministers
On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Kamloops.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, during an exchange in Question Period the Minister of Finance referred on a number of occasions to a number of reports and studies that his Department has completed. I wonder if the Minister would do the time honoured and traditional thing and table those reports in the House so that all Members will have the opportunity to evaluate that information.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would refer the Hon. Member to The Goods and Services Tax brochure dated April 27. A number of elements in it relate to the economic cost of the federal sales tax on page four and on subsequent pages, as well as on the competitiveness and growth impacts which are on pages 15 to 18.1 would also remind the Hon. Member that there will be a technical paper which I will be making available hopefully later this month. In that paper there will be further information on the economic impacts.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Minister of Finance sharing with us some of the comments in the Budget Papers which we have all read and studied. However, he made reference to a number of other documents, particularly economic impact studies that his Department had completed. They were the ones to which I was referring. I wonder if he would table them for all Members to see.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Section 150(1) of the Financial Administration Act and Standing Order 32(2) of the House of Commons, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 1988 annual report of the Canadian Development Investment Corporation.

June 9, 1989
Statements by Ministers


GOVERNMENT POLICY ON ANTI-DOPING
Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, for several months now, Canadians have followed very closely the public hearings of the commission of inquiry into drug use in amateur sport, better known as the Dubin Inquiry.
Before the Olympic Games in Seoul, probably very few people in Canada knew about anabolic steroids. Since the incidents involving Canadian athletes and the appointment of a commission of inquiry chaired by Justice Charles Dubin, the least one could say is that Canadians have become very much aware of the problems of drug use in sport.
For governments, however, the problem of doping and cheating in sport is not a new one. In 1983, after the Pan-American Games when several Canadian athletes who had tested positive were sent back to Canada, the federal Government drafted its very first anti-doping policy.
In 1985, my predecessor, the Hon. Otto Jelinek, announced a major tightening of the policy drafted in 1983. As a result, any athlete who tests positive for anabolic steroids is suspended for life by Sports Canada, even for a first offence.
Mr. Speaker, Canadian sanctions are among the severest in the world.
We have decided to take a firm stand at the national level, a decision that has also led us to try and influence the international sports community as a whole.

Canada's severe policy in the area of doping in sports obligated us as a country to assume a leadership role in trying to eradicate this problem world-wide. In 1986, the Canadian Minister of Sport was afforded the privilege of addressing the Council of Europe at an assembly of 25 Sports Ministers from Europe. At that time the Hon. Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Jelinek) chose to speak on the very serious issue of doping in sport and the urgency of the sport community to act. The importance of an international effort was put into perspective in the
following remarks which I want to quote, keeping in mind these words were pronounced in 1986:
In short, the objective must be universality. The nature of this issue, indeed what may lie at the very root of it is concern that the actions of one countiy may outstrip the actions of others, thus disadvantaging in the short run at least, those who undertake the strongest action. I do not personally believe in a qualified or conditional code of ethics, but we all know that our athletes however much they may wish to compete in an environment not only of a relative fairness but which conforms to high personal standards of morality, do not want to be faced with the ambiguity and temptations which arise from inconsistent application of rules.
In view of reaching our objective, that Minister had a clear vision of Canada's role. I want to draw from the same speech and quote:
I believe that Canada's position permits us to make an offer to play the credible broker as between east and west, and among western nations around this table, with the objective of facilitating the eventual adoption of international agreements on the widest possible basis.
During the successful Calgary Olympics in 1988, the Canadian Government, with the IOC, succeeded in convincing Governments from the east bloc and west bloc to sit down together with representatives of sport federations and hold the first world permanent conference on anti-doping in sport.
This conference, held in Ottawa in June 1988 before the Seoul Olympics and co-hosted by the IOC represented by its vice-president. Prince Alexandre de Mer-ode, and the Canadian Minister, was a resounding success. The result of the conference which included 28 countries was the proposal of a world anti-doping charter that proposes among other things harmonization of testing procedures and sanctions and out of competition testing without prior notice.
As a result of this conference, the Government of Canada agreed to head a working group whose mission was to promote the anti-doping charter to other Governments. The IOC under the able leadership of its vicepresident, Prince Alexandre de Merode, undertook to promote the charter to the responsible authorities within the international sport community.
Since that first successful world conference the following action has been undertaken. In September of 1988, in the week preceding the Seoul Olympics, I was honoured with an invitation to present the anti-doping charter to the IOC executive committee. The charter was adopted by the IOC at their general meeting and renamed the International Olympic Anti-Doping Charter. The president of the IOC, Juan Antonio Samaranch, in his
June 9. 1989

opening remarks to the IOC general assembly, thanked Canada for having agreed to play a leadership role.
As agreed to between the President of the IOC and the Canadian Government, the anti-doping charter was subsequently presented and supported at the second UNESCO Conference of Sport Ministers held in Moscow in November of 1988. The UNESCO Conference of Sport Ministers was the largest forum of its kind in the world.
Nine days ago, Canada scored a significant victory in the battle against drug abuse in sports. At the sixth conference of European sport Ministers held in Reykjavik, Iceland, representatives of 25 countries officially endorsed the International Olympic Anti-doping Charter. As in 1986, Canada was invited for a second time to address this conference on the issue of doping in sport.

Canada's success at the international level was made possible by our firm resolve to deal directly with the drug problem and show that we are prepared to practise what we preach. The appointment of the Dubin Commission is one example.
Mr. Speaker, today I intend to share with you, and with all Members of this House, our latest achievements. Since the Olympic Games in Seoul and the hearings of the Dubin Commission, the question I hear most often, and this applies to other Members of this House as well, is whether other countries will follow suit. Will Canadian athletes be the only ones to obey the rules? It is still too early to answer yes or no. However, we can say that we have made considerable progress so far.

The question most often asked of me and other Members of the House is whether Canadian athletes will be the only athletes in international competition to abide by the rules. Will other countries impose upon themselves the same tough scrutiny and discipline that Canada has adopted for itself?
Statements by Ministers
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I felt that it was important to report to you and Members of the House the progress we have accomplished to this date. Canada's resolve to deal directly and openly with the doping problem has been praised by the international community as a bold and courageous step.
Canadians should take pride in the fact that we stood by our principles in the most difficult of circumstances. There is still much work to be done as the Government awaits the recommendations that will eventually be put forward by the Dubin inquiry.
In the meantime, real progress has been accomplished world-wide, in great part because of our collective resolve.
I want to take a moment to thank my critics from the opposition Parties who have shown on this issue and other areas, a good example of co-operation and collaboration in the House.


Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks I want to thank the Minister for his last comment. Certainly his initiative has gone a long way to creating that spirit of co-operation.
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond today to the statements made by the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Charest).
The endorsement given to the International Olympic Anti-doping Charter at the sixth conference of European Ministers responsible for sport recently was indeed a positive step in the process to establish world-wide adoption of this charter. The charter was originally drafted at the first permanent world anti-doping conference held here in Ottawa in 1988. At that time, Canada accepted the responsibility to promote the charter's acceptance throughout the world. Thus, with the approval of the charter by the 25 European governments attending the Reykjavik conference, we are closer to that goal.
While I am pleased with the European endorsement of the anti-doping charter, I believe Canada must continue to obtain further endorsements from other governments if this charter is to have any weight in the sporting world. Given the tragic events that occurred during the Soeul Olympics, Canada has to display to the rest of the world its steadfast commitment toward

June 9. 1989
Statements by Ministers
eradicating the use of drugs in sport, both domestically and internationally. However, we cannot simply be seen as supporting the international fight against drug use while not taking enough productive steps to eliminate drug use in amateur sport in Canada. Sadly, however, this was indeed the case over the last few years.
Canada should be commended for what has been accomplished at the international level. But our efforts at home have not been as successful. I am concerned by the fact that the Government is eager to display its commitment to eliminating drug use in amateur sport but is not as eager to share in the responsibility for what is going on in our own backyard.
The shock and disbelief that many Canadians felt over what occurred in Soeul has been eclipsed by what we are witnessing from the Dubin inquiry. The inquiry has so far uncovered considerable evidence of the use of drugs and the extent of the problem in Canadian amateur sport. This problem cannot be related to the actions of one single athlete in only one specific sport. The inquiry has shown that a number of athletes and coaches have been involved in the use of illegal performance enhancing drugs and in perfecting measures to escape detection.
Given the revelations of the Dubin inquiry to date, I certainly would like to know, as I believe many Canadians would, how the present Minister for Fitness and Amateur Sport and his predecessor did not know what was going on in our amateur sport system. I find it truly amazing that they were giving funding to a number of our A-card athletes and others who, as their testimony has shown, were using illegal drugs and were involved in an extensive drug program for a number of years. Given the part played by the Government in assisting amateur sport in Canada, it could have been more effective in recognizing and preventing what was occurring.
I do, however, want to state that the majority of Canada's amateur athletes, coaches and officials must not be painted with the same brush. We all know that they contribute a considerable amount of time and honest effort to amateur sport here in Canada and in competitions abroad.
I hope to comment further on the Dubin inquiry after its conclusion and when its recommendations have been released. I also sincerely hope that the response of the Minister to the inquiry's recommendations will be dealt
with firmly and expeditiously by the Government in a prudent and satisfactory manner.
In conclusion, I would like to assure the House of my support for Canada's international efforts to obtain world-wide approval of the anti-doping charter. I would also like to remind the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport of my question to him on April 14, when I asked the Minister if he would endeavour to have Canada participate in the joint U.S.-Soviet agreement that allows these countries to randomly test each other's athletes for illegal performance enhancing drugs. The U.S. Olympic Committee said they expected other countries to join in this program. I was happy to learn that on June 3, the USOC ratified the structure of this agreement. Canada's decision to join now would be a further indication to the sports world of our commitment to end drug use in amateur sport.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Lake St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the place of our critic for sports, the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. Brewin), who is unable to be here. In speaking on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, I want to reaffirm our support for the work of the Dubin inquiry and for all efforts to rid sports, indeed all aspects of Canadian life, from the scourge of illegal drugs.
We share the Minister's enthusiasm for the actions of the European sports ministers in endorsing the International Olympic Anti-doping Charter.
There is still a long way to go, as I am sure the Minister recognizes. We await with interest the completion of the Dubin inquiry and its conclusions. We caution all Canadians, indeed the international sports community, from drawing too many conclusions before all the evidence is in.
We look to the Dubin inquiry to examine the role of athletic organizations at home and abroad in inducing athletes to use banned substances, particularly in respect of setting qualifying standards for funding of promising athletes. One might wonder about what seems to have been a long-standing complicity of ignorance about the use of drugs in athletics in Canada that many of us who are involved in sports like track and field knew would be a problem.
We want to look at the "win at all cost" philosophy that seems to have overcome the ideals of sport. We look to Mr. Justice Dubin to shed light on the distinction between dangerous drugs and performance enhancing drugs, because the treatment accorded to athletes in
June 9. 1989

respect of their continued eligibility should certainly be weighed under different criteria for one as compared to the other.
We look also to the inquiry to examine the arbitrary system of discipline which denies athletes at present the fundamental right of natural justice when determining their athletic futures in the face of allegations of drug use.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Victoria has put a motion on the Order Paper calling for a bill of rights for athletes. I commend that motion to this House, to the Government and to Mr. Justice Dubin.
We must deal with drugs in sports. We must do so in a way which is consistent with the high ideals of sports and with fairness, justice and wisdom. The action of the European sports ministers was a step in the right direction.


INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the delegation of the Canadian Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, of the thirty-seventh parliamentary visit to Britain which was held at Westminster from May 3, 1989 to May 19, 1989.
[DOT]k


PETITIONS
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today which relates to a very important criminal justice issue that is of great concern to Canadians. I have here signatures of petitioners from right across Canada. There are 1,484 signatures on this particular petition.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to revise the laws of Canada relating to extradition to allow the Justice Minister of Canada to order the extradition of alleged or convicted criminals at any time after their apprehension
Petitions
in Canada, even during their period of incarceration for crimes committed in Canada.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present two petitions containing 1,442 signatures on behalf of my constituents of Calgary Northeast in Alberta, which request that the likes of Charles Ng and Joseph Kindler be extradited immediately.
I would like to quote from Hansard, page 2670, where the Minister of Justice states:
-the treaty clearly states that where there is an extradition
arrangement the provisions of the arrangement or the treaty take
precedence over the Act.
The decision whether or not to extradite is a decision with
discretion in the hands of the Minister of Justice.
Therefore, I request the Minister to take his responsibility and act swiftly so that justice not be further delayed.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36. It is my duty and honour to present a petition on behalf of residents of the city of Moose Jaw who are concerned about the future of VIA Rail.
In the petition they call upon the federal Government to ensure that rail passenger services in Canada be retained, modernized and expanded as an important part of our national transportation system.


Mr. Lyle Dean Mac William (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour under Standing Order 36, on behalf of residents of Canada, to submit a petition to this House regarding the proposed changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, which is also presently being debated in this Chamber.
The undersigned are grieving the proposed changes which will prevent up to one million Canadians annually from establishing unemployment insurance claims. They are grieving the kind of Draconian changes that are implicit in this legislation and ask for the Government to reconsider in due course.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36, on behalf of a number of people from Kamloops, British Columbia, who are concerned with the Government's intention to change the Unemployment Insurance Act. They recognize it is going to cut out hundreds

June 9, 1989
Supply
of thousands of people from benefits that they ought to receive. They are asking the Government to reconsider this Draconian measure.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Another group of constituents from Kamloops, British Columbia, are very concerned about the apparent growing militarization of the Canadian economy being fostered by the federal Government. They are asking the federal Government to come to its senses and back off from this incredibly negative initiative in terms of attempting to enhance and expand the arms industry in our country.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 34 were made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 34 be made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Wappel: For (a) 1984 (b) 1985 (c) 1986 (d) 1987 (e) 1988 did any individuals, groups or corporations in the electoral district of Scarborough West receive any loans or grants from the government, its agencies or Crown Corporations and, if so (i) which individuals, groups or corporations (ii) in what amounts (iii) for what reason were these funds provided?
Return tabled.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of the Minister's statement, Government Orders will be extended by 16 minutes.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Tobin:
That this House condemns the Government for its short-sighted
and punitive policies that are designed to eliminate passenger rail
services in Canada despite the essential nature of these services to
the development of communities in all regions of the country.
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, before my debating time starts, I have a point of order. In the absence of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard), who has failed to show up for the questions and comments period-


An Hon. Member:: Order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -on his speech, can we direct questions to any other Minister in the House?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No, unfortunately not. We must resume debate with the Member for Regina-Lumsden.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the Minister of Transport extended his apologies to the two Opposition Parties and indicated that he was not able to be here for the latter part of the debate, although he was here this morning. I just wanted to bring that to the attention of the House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, that is news to me. In 1977. after studying the establishment of VIA Rail Canada Limited with a $1 item in the Estimates, and after watching its operations for the first few months, I said then: "VIA Rail designed to fail." Twelve years later, what I said then applies now.
VIA Rail was finished before it even sold its first ticket; before the first train started to move it was $100 million in the hole. It started off with the deck stacked
June 9, 1989

against it. It had to pay out, using taxpayers' money, $77 million to CN and CP for that old, worn out equipment.
Twelve years ago, the youngest car was 25 years old. The youngest car now is 37 years old. Elowever, we were assured by six successive Ministers of Transport, and that is how many we have been through since 1976, all of whom said they and their governments were committed to a viable, at least break even, safe, reliable national rail passenger system.
The first three Ministers were from the previous Liberal administration, all of whom are unlamented. Mr. Lang is the one who started VIA Rail with the $1 item in the Estimates. He told us in 1976 and again in 1977 that there would be a VIA Rail and a national rail passenger transportation act.
Then there was Jean-Luc Pepin. He is the fellow who undertook 21 cut-backs. I remember hearing the Conservatives, including the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), raising Cain with the then Government and the then Minister of Transport about cut-backs on 21 routes.
Then there was the unlamented former Minister of Transport, a sitting Member of the House at this time, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Axworthy). There is good reason why he is not the transport critic for the Liberal Party.


Mr. Milliken:: He has been moved up.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Hon. Member says he has been promoted. Transport happens to be the largest Department in the Government. He got promoted down, not up.
With Mr. Lang we did not get legislation. With Mr. Pepin we got massive cut-backs and no legislation. The present Member for Winnipeg South Centre kept the cut-backs, brought in no legislation and no new equipment. The three of them said: "We will re-equip VIA Rail so that it can function the way it should".


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: What about the LRCs?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It took four years to get the bugs out of the LRCs before they started operating half decently. All the locomotives had to be overhauled-and they were brand new. I ask the Hon. Member not to tell me
Supply
about LRCs. If the Hon. Member knew anything about transportation I would not mind his intervening.
Along came 1979 and the Hon. Member for Vegreville, who is also the Deputy Prime Minister and was the Minister of Transport at that time, said on November 21, 1979, "This Government is indeed encouraging the revitalization of rail services throughout Canada". In October, as reported in the Calgary Herald, he said he wanted to bring romance back to VIA Rail, back to train travel. As reported in the Halifax Chronicle Herald on October 11, 1984-and this is after the Hon. Member for Vegreville had his second incarnation-he said: "At long last Canada has a federal Transport Minister who has a vision of rail passenger travel in this country". It was refreshing to hear him talking of high-speed services in the Montreal corridor and between Edmonton and Calgary. It was pleasing to hear him speak of new locomotives and cars for the use of VIA Rail in the Maritimes.
In November, 1984, the Hon. Member for Vegreville said, "We intend as well to put in place a proper legislative mandate that will ensure that it will continue to work providing the type of service that will make all Canadians proud".
In May, 1985 he said as reported in Hansard: "I can assure the Hon. Member that we are committed to revitalizing rail passenger service. We are also committed to putting in new equipment."
In December of 1985 he said: "The drafting of the new Passenger Rail Act is in its final stage. Many attempts are being made to improve the attractiveness and therefore the ridership of VIA Rail".
In February of 1986 he said: "I can indeed reconfirm this Government's commitment to viable rail passenger service in this country".
We have had nothing but a double-cross and a betrayal.
There were two other Ministers who followed in the footsteps of the Hon. Member for Vegreville as Minister of Transport. There was the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) who said in May of 1987: "Because of the additional funding we are now providing for VIA Rail, it will be able to go forward with its plans to construct maintenance facilities in Winnipeg, Vancouver and Halifax". What do we need brand new maintenance

June 9, 1989
Supply
facilities for if there ain't no trains running? That passes all understanding.
I agree with the Hon. Member who led off the debate, the present Minister of Transport is a nice fellow. However, he "don't know nothing" about transportation.
When the Minister told us in the House and in the Transport Committee yesterday that the VIA Rail cuts were based on Department of Finance studies what crossed my mind immediately was: where the heck was the Department of Transport? Why are these gnomes in the nether regions of the Department of Transport, who would not know one end of a locomotive from another, doing a study on VIA Rail? Any self-respecting Minister of Transport would immediately go to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and say: "Look, either I am running my Department or here is my resignation". However, he sits passively by.
It is now more obvious than ever that this Government and the previous one never had any intention of bringing in a national rail passenger act. Keeping it as a one dollar item in the Estimates allows the Government and any Minister, as well as VIA Rail, the CNR or the CPR, to do any damn thing they want, any time they want, any place they want.
I am sorry that I have to be somewhat bitter about this. I remember a Liberal Cabinet Minister saying: "Use it or lose it". A Conservative Cabinet Minister repeated that expression, including the Hon. Member for Vegreville.
Despite all the statements that have been made by successive Ministers of Transport, particularly the last three, I wonder how they feel about having the Minister of Finance making liars out of them and the Prime Minister? "Use it or lose it", they said. Mr. Speaker, if you run a train old enough and slow enough and late enough so that nobody will get on it, how could you get anyone to use it? The deck was stacked against the travelling public of Canada from day one. They had no intention of installing a viable rail passenger system.
Since 1976 we have been proposing brand new passenger locomotives, although how they will haul trains with these cut-backs is hard to say. We have received between 30 and 50 of them. Some are still coming on stream. However, we need a minimum of 150 new transcontinental passenger cars for western Canada and Atlantic Canada, from Montreal east. This Government and the previous ones since 1976 have spent more money refurbishing old cars and old equipment than what it would have cost to completely re-equip VIA Rail. These Liberals and these Tories talk about sound business practices. Any private businessman who tried to operate a railway in that manner would have his banker laughing him out of the bank.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: We did not support the refurbishing of
those cars.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I want to remind my hon. friend that the Liberal Government, of which Mr. Pepin and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre were a part, supported the refurbishing of cars. In fact, some of these cars are now being refurbished for the third time. If those are sound business practices, then they are a bunch of bone-heads.
Once the new equipment is put in place, what VIA Rail will save in operating maintenance costs will be enough to recover the costs of the new passenger cars in five to seven years. Instead of that, we are refurbishing cars that are anywhere from 37 to 50 years old, some of them for the third time.
You wonder why VIA Rail cannot succeed. You wonder how. You do not need to wonder, now that it is "VIA Rail designed to fail". The only ones that have been made happy about this are the current Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the bus companies. That is about it.
I want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that had what I proposed and proposed for all these years been put in place, you would not have between six million and seven million Canadians riding VIA Rail, you would have 15 million to 20 million Canadians riding VIA Rail. You would speed up the schedules.
I have made a thorough study of the VIA Rail national schedules. It takes seven and a half hours from Regina to Winnipeg when you should be doing it in not more than six; it could be done in five hours and 30 minutes. You see that throughout the whole system.
June 9, 1989

I have in my office, which I invite you to come and see, a copy of the CPR Transcontinental schedule for 1892. The average speed from Montreal to Vancouver was 33 miles per hour and the train had to stop every 100 miles for coal and water and to change crews. The average speed of VIA Rail, Montreal to Vancouver, is 36 or 37 miles per hour-"VIA Rail designed to fail". The Government has deliberately handicapped it to the point where it cannot succeed.
The one president VIA Rail had, Mr. deBelleval, who was finally starting to turn it around, was preparing a five-year plan including a high-speed train corridor that will take several years and $2 billion to $3 billion of investment, but you have got to invest the money before you can get a return on it. You have got to invest the money before people will use it. These guys keep doing it backwards.
I would like to remind the House of another thing, Mr. Speaker. How come the Government is picking on VIA Rail? The Minister says, "We cannot continue to keep throwing all this money at VIA Rail." Why doesn't the Government pick on the St. Lawrence Seaway and all the ports that lose a bundle every year? The Government should do with some of them what it is going to do with VIA Rail. VIA will be operating a passenger train only three times a week. So let us have some of those ports shut down four days a week. They can only operate three days a week. We will close the locks on the St. Lawrence Seaway four days a week.
The juicy one, Mr. Speaker, is Air Transport. Believe it or not, the Department of Transport puts out a document called Self-Supporting Airports and there are nine of them that are supposed to be self-supporting. Well, seven of the nine had losses for last year of over $50 million. The accumulated deficits of those seven so-called self-supporting airports comes to $833 million. I think we have to take Winnipeg, Ottawa, Dorval, Mirabel, Halifax, Calgary and Edmonton and shut them down for four days a week, or they can only operate three days a week. I mean, we cannot keep throwing all this money at those airports. When you add all the other so-called non-self-supporting airports that the Department of Transport operates in Canada, Mr. Speaker, you are looking at deficits of $500 million to $700 million a year, subsidies to air passengers.
Supply
What the heck is the Government doing? It does not know and it does not care. The Government deliberately picks on a mode of transportation that millions of people in Canada want to use. In my city the westbound train goes through at two o'clock or 2.30 in the morning and the eastbound somewhere around 3.30 a.m. or four o'clock. It is a great time of the day to entice people and give them the incentive to get on the train. Even so, people in my city are angry about what is going to happen to the rail passenger service.
I often wonder how the Government allocates the air transport tax. By the way, did you know, Mr. Speaker, that losses of the airport do not include the some $25 million it costs for RCMP services? Those services are charged to the Solicitor General and there are a whole bunch of other charges.
All the fines and parking tickets and whatnot that are picked up at airports goes to general revenue. Those funds do not go to the airports nor to the Department of Transport. They go into general revenue.
The Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Jelinek) get their grubby hands on it and that is the last you see of it, and that is a few million dollars a year. Why is the Government picking on VIA Rail?
Every mode of transportation since the invention of the wheel has been subsidized. There has never been a totally self-supporting, self-sufficient mode of transportation in history, even since the days of the Babylonians, that paid for itself, let alone make a profit. There never has been and it did not matter whether the system was state-owned or privately owned. The situation applies in both circumstances. It always has and always will.
The problem is that this Government and the previous ones refuse to treat transportation as a public utility. If the private sector will not do the job, then the public sector has to take it over and damn well do it. But it is a public utility. Transportation is something that everyone has to use, directly or indirectly, and until you have national transportation policies that spell that out then the fate of any individual mode of transportation or transport facility is left to the whim of any given Minister of Transport or any Ministry or Government from time to time. And that is no way to run a railway.

June 9, 1989
Supply
I want to move a sub-amendment to the amendment, seconded by the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Harvey):
That the motion be amended by adding the following words:
that this House further condemn the Government for reneging on the commitment made by the Deputy Prime Minister, which reads in part, "every step necessaty will be taken to ensure that VIA will operate in a safe and reliable fashion in offering good service to Canadians from coast to coast".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will take the amendment under advisement and report back to the House as soon as possible.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, the commitment of the Hon. Member for Regina-Lumsden (Mr. Benjamin) to VIA Rail is a sincere and long-standing one and no one in this House would gainsay that. Would the Member tell the House how many jobs would be in jeopardy in Regina, Saskatoon or elsewhere, that he might have figures for, if VIA were to shut down completely in western Canada or in Saskatchewan?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend. Since both Regina and Saskatoon are not division points, there are no crew changes in either of those places. I don't know. I am just guessing. I suspect it will mean a loss of 10, 15 or 20 jobs in Moose Jaw; some at Melville: some at Wilkie; maybe a few in Saskatoon. The only VIA Rail employees we have in Regina are two or three ticket clerks who work in the middle of the night.
It is not a question of employment in my city. However, when you take the situation across the country, not only VIA Rail but what CN and CP are doing, we are looking at tens of thousands of jobs.
One of the abandonments VIA Rail will undoubtedly undertake will be the Montreal-Ottawa-Sudbury run because CN wants to abandon that rail line. That fits in very well with Mr. Lawless' ideas as President of CN as well as what will be his ideas as President of VIA Rail. I suppose you could call that a neat job, a further neat job being done on VIA Rail.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I would ask him if he has been able to do any studies as to not only the number of jobs that will be affected, but the number of Canadians
who would not have access to rail transportation if VIA were to be eliminated altogether.
Mr. Speaker, I might say that the Member and I have travelled on VIA. We both travel on it quite frequently, I believe. Has he been able to prepare any material on this matter yet?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend. I apologize. I have been trying to find out from senior citizens' associations and tourist associations but the only thing I have been able to get so far is what is in news reports. Senior citizens in particular do not have the facilities and wherewithal to do a study.
I can say that the last time I took the train with a bedroom from Regina to Ottawa, I did my own survey. I went the length of the entire train and talked to passengers. I found they were in three classes. There were senior citizens who either could not afford a plane ticket-although VIA Rail tickets now are almost as much as a plane fare-or needed the space to move around, have a sleep, or whatever. There were young families with two, three, or four children, who cannot afford plane tickets. One can imagine what it would be like putting them all on a bus for a 600 or 1,000-mile trip. Then there were tourists. Japanese, West Germans and Americans accounted for most of the tourists on the train. They were delighted that they could make that trip. One of the reasons they came to Canada was to travel from Vancouver to Montreal, stop off and see Banff, Jasper, Calgary, and Edmonton and then go on to Montreal. Then they go down south and take Amtrak back to the west coast, or vice versa. The tourist potential on this alone has been barely scratched.
I know my hon. friend is aware of this. All you have to do is talk to the tourist people in Edmonton and Jasper. They will tell you in spades what it means to them.
By the way, I mentioned Amtrak. They have reequipped Amtrak. It is is doing very well, thank you. At least they had the foresight in the United States to re-equip it. They do not have to pay an arm and a leg to the railroads of the United States like they do in Canada. In fact, if VIA Rail could operate under the same formula as Amtrak does in the United States, they would save $60 million to $120 million a year in what they have to pay to CN and CR
June 9, 1989


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North on a question or comment.


Mr. Pagtakhan:: Mr. .Speaker, I would like to rise and comment. I support the Opposition motion "That this House condemn the Government for its short-sighted and punitive policies that are designed to eliminate passenger rail services in Canada despite the essential nature of these services to the development of communities in all regions of the country."
I also stand and rise to support the amendment that this House further condemns the Government for reneging on its promises to support VIA Rail and provide reliable and safe service across the country.
I would like to reflect the viewpoint of a westerner from Manitoba, although this is truly a national issue because it affects all Canadians from coast to coast.
Let me remind the Government, Mr. Speaker, of a few things, lest it has forgotten that Canada is a country with vast areas, that it is a country with distant and remote communities, that it has one of the harshest climates in the world, that it has hazardous roads in the winter, that it is a country with beautiful scenery and landscape that attracts tourism.
It is also known, Mr. Speaker, that most cultural centres, trained technicians and health and social services are found in the cities of our country. Hence, I submit that VIA Rail offers an excellent tool for tourism in Canada. It offers all year-round transportation for most rural communities. It will ensure amenities for Canadians in the rural areas and countryside. It will ensure access to essential health care and social services that are only found in the major cities of our country. Furthermore, VIA Rail ensures the economic growth of our regions and communities.
I would also like to remind this Government that all Canadians from all parts of this country pay taxes. They will, in fact, stand and fight for this country when the time or need arises. Thus, I would like to pose to the Government the following questions.
Has it forgotten the geography and character of Canada? Does it not believe that tourism is an essential industry of the country? Does it not want to provide safe
Supply
travel for all Canadians the whole year round? Would it not like to ensure that rural citizens have the privilege to access cultural amenities in major cities? Would it not like to believe that Canadians, wherever they are, ought to be able to access medical and health care services? Does it not believe that Canadians in all parts of the country have a right to move freely and safely?
I honestly believe that the Government will agree that VIA Rail has helped build this country from coast to coast, that VIA Rail will ensure the link to rural communities in Canada and provides safe transportation for all and that it will ensure the economic growth of all regions. If the Government does agree, then it should condemn its short-sighted and punitive policies.
Finally, I submit that a medical doctor, on seeing an ailing patient, makes a diagnosis first. He then ascertains the causes of the illness. He then prescribes the necessary treatment. VIA Rail has an ailment-non-profitability. The causes are outmoded equipment, stiff pricing regulations, and misplacement of maintenance centres across the country.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that the treatment ought to be assistance to procure high-speed bilevel cars for VIA Rail so that it will promote increased usage of this mode of transportation, reduce the cost of maintenance, and decrease the further drain on the treasury of this Crown corporation.
In conclusion, to pursue its present policy and to allow cuts in VIA Rail is no longer neglect on the part of the Government. It will be a prescription of deliberate poison to the distant communities of our country.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has considered the amendment moved by the Member from Regina-Lumsden and thus finds it to be in order. Debate will resume with the Hon. Member for Mississauga West.


Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to this debate with great interest. It is interesting to hear the ills of VIA Rail being compared with a medical disease, a diagnosis being prescribed and treatment being prescribed. With this in mind, I would like to offer my comments with regard to the illnesses of VIA Rail with concern for its ridership.

June 9, 1989
Supply
There is a general impression that government funding for VIA Rail is being cut at a time when the corporation's ridership figure is improving, and that VIA Rail may be turning a comer.
I will admit that ridership has indeed increased from 5.9 million passengers in 1987 to 6.4 million passengers in 1988. However, when we examine those figures more closely, we find that the 1988 ridership is only an improvement on a year-over-year basis from 1987, a year which represents the lowest ridership in VIAs history.
If one looks at the broader picture of rail passenger service in this country, one comes to the inescapable conclusion that VIA's performance has been worsening and not improving. Moreover, since its creation in 1977, VIA Rail has absorbed more than $5 billion of taxpayers' money. As we go through this debate, we have to remember that $5 billion is not a small influx of capital, as has been suggested by some speakers.
During this time the Government has made major investments in VIA to give it a fair chance to prove itself. These investments have improved service and led to savings, but never to the degree expected.
In 1987, after 10 full years of funding, the corporation experienced its lowest ever ridership level of 5.9 million passengers. A more telling comparison is between 1988 and 1981 ridership figures, since 1981 represents the year in which VIA achieved its highest ridership level of about eight million passengers. Such a comparison reveals that VIA's 1988 "improved" ridership is actually 20 per cent lower than in 1981.
The Government did make a commitment to cost-effective, modern, national passenger rail services. In doing so, however, the Government asked Canadians to share in this commitment by doing their part and take the train. This has not happened. The Government made it clear to Canadians that it would apply a "use it or lose it" approach to the funding of rail passenger services.
Since making those statements in 1984, the Government has spent more than $2.6 billion of taxpayers' money on operating and capital expenditures. That is not a small amount, as has been stated by members of the Opposition.
Despite ever-increasing subsidies, rail passenger services currently retain only 3 per cent of the total Canadian inter-city passenger traffic.
At the same time, we must remember that bus service has increased its passenger service to 6 per cent, which is double the train service; air travel has a market share of 7 per cent; and demonstrating Canadian's love affair with cars, automobiles, and trucks, those modes of transportation enjoy the lion's share of the market at 84 per cent. Those figures reveal that Canadians have a definite preference for passenger modes other than rail. They have sent a clear signal of that preference to the Government.
In light of the low-ridership levels for rail passenger services, and the Government's commitment to expenditure reduction and restraint, subsidies to VIA Rail cannot be maintained at the level the corporation is accustomed to. As the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) stated: "Canadian taxpayers can no longer afford ever-increasing subsidies for a mode of transportation with decreasing ridership". By 1988, those subsidies had reached an annual level of $641 million, which translates to an average of $100 per passenger.
A member of the Opposition stated that all passenger transportation modes are subsidized. That is true. GO Transit in my area of Mississauga, Oakville, and Milton is subsidized to the tune of approximately $1.65 per passenger. Everyone can understand that. However, when the subsidy reaches $100 per passenger, something has to give.
When presented with those facts, some opponents of the Government's decision to cut subsidies to VIA Rail point to the fact that ridership performance on some services is improving. This is indeed true for the Ottawa-Toronto route where, between 1986 to 1988, traffic has increased by 29 per cent. However, the improvements made by this service have been more than offset by poor performance on other routes during the same period.
For example, ridership has declined by 15 per cent on the Victoria-Kootenay route in British Columbia, and by 26 per cent on the Moncton-Edmundston route in New Brunswick. This declining ridership is a major factor in the climb of VIA subsidies to an all-time high of $641 million. The fact remains that on a system-wide basis, seat occupancy in 1988 has been determined to be 52 per cent. In other words, for every seat occupied there is a
June 9. 1989

seat vacant. VIA must operate its services in a more-effective and rational manner.
Therefore, faced with such low performance and the prospect of ever-increasing subsidy levels, the Government made the difficult-and believe me, Mr. Speaker, it was difficult-but fiscally responsible decision to take immediate action in light of the pressing need to control the debt and the deficit.
Accordingly, a new policy approach has been adopted for VIA and new funding levels have been established for the operation of rail passenger services. I believe it is worth while reading those funding levels into the record. They are $541 million for 1989-90, $435 million for 1990-91, $394 million for 1991-92, $275 million for 1992-93, and $250 million for 1993-94. That is one-quarter of a billion dollars that will be put into rail passenger service for 1993-94.
Through these new financial limits, VIA's management is being asked to operate in a more streamlined and cost-conscious manner within a new federal Budget reality.
To achieve those objectives as soon possible, the corporation has been directed to submit a new five-year business plan that conforms to the new Budget restraints, and rises to the challenge of providing rail passenger services in a more cost-effective manner within these constraints.
There has been much discussion about truly isolated communities. In recognition of the Government's commitment to service, for truly isolated communities which have no other year-round means of transportation, the Government has asked VIA to maintain service to the truly isolated communities along VIA's remote routes in five provinces. I believe that it is worth while mentioning those routes. They are the following lines: Jasper-Prince Rupert, The Pas-Lynn Lake, Wabowden-Churchill, Winnipeg-Churchill, Winnipeg-Capreol, Sudbury-White River, Senneterre-Cochrane, Montreal-Sennet-erre, and Montreal-Jonquiere.
However, with the exception of protecting the services to isolated communities along the remote routes that I have cited, VIA's management has been given a considerable measure of flexibility in developing a new business plan. In preparing its new business plan, VIA will
Supply
consider all possible options for operating within its budget, including productivity improvements, increased fares, abandonment of routes, service reductions on some routes, and transfer of service to interested third parties. This has not been an easy thing for this Government to have to face.
Let us go back to the national debt and the deficit. One hundred per cent of Canadians recognize that we have a debt and a deficit problem in this country when 36 cents out of every tax dollar collected must go to service the debt. This is a difficult situation and the Government has taken a responsible action in putting forward a plan and asking VIA Rail to submit a new five-year plan whereby it can operate more efficiently. If only 3 per cent of Canadians want to ride the trains, why should we be asking 100 per cent of Canadians to pay $100 in subsidy for each rider of the train?


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question to the Member for Mississauga West (Mr. Horner). I would like to read a few quotations made during the 1981 debate on VIA Rail and ask for his impression on those quotations. They were made by the now Deputy Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mazankowski). The following statement relates to his feelings toward the then Minister of Transport in the Liberal Government, and it was made in October, 1981:
He chooses to ignore the traditional process which is part of the Canadian way, the right to hold public hearings, to be heard and have an opportunity to express concern about the criteria of public convenience and necessity.
On October 20, 1981, the present Deputy Prime Minister said:
There should be improvements in the contractual agreements between the railways and VIA Rail. We should give VIA Rail the necessary autonomy, power and clout to negotiate with the railways in a businesslike manner. The VIA Rail mandate should be clarified and enshrined in legislative form-an investment in new bi-level equipment would decrease operating costs by 31 per cent-we would not have been a country had it not been for the guarantees inherent in the provision of rail services.
The current Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Siddon) stated on October 20, 1981 in regard to energy conservation:
This means that it is essential for people like the Minister of Transport to start talking trains and increased load factor, rather than

June 9, 1989
Supply
dismantling the system, but he must encourage the ever-increasing
efficiency of our rail transportation system in Canada.
In 1985, this Government under the Deputy Prime Minister who was the then Minister of Transport presented Bill C-97 to the House, an Act respecting rail passenger transportation for first reading. It never went any further. It died. Does the Member and his caucus still believe what the Deputy Prime Minister said at the time; that is, the reason why VIA Rail is not meeting its objectives is because its hands are tied, that it has not been given the opportunity to be a successful business venture because of a lack of mandate, lack of legislation and lack of commitment by the Government of the day.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I am quite sure that when the Deputy Prime Minister made those statements, he felt they could be accomplished. Believe me, we have tried. We have carried on the subsidies to the tune of $2.6 billion so that VIA Rail could act in an autonomous way.
Regarding public participation and consultation, the consultations have taken place. Canadians have said they are not interested in riding the trains. Canadians have said that only 3 per cent of us want to ride the train. Ridership is dropping throughout the country.
When I was very young there was a railway to my hometown in Pontiac County 50 miles from here. It ran from Waltham, Quebec to Ottawa. It was called the Pontiac Pacific junction but it never became the Pontiac Pacific junction because it never got across the Ottawa River and out to the Pacific. So we called it the "push, pull and jerk''-the PPJ. The "push, pull and jerk" came to Ottawa every morning and went back every night. It was a great mode of transportation for the people of that day. However, we are not in the 19th century.
In the 19th century when Sir John A. Macdonald founded the railroads, they were the only mode of travel. We did not have the highways, the automobiles or the airplanes that we have today. Canadians have made a statement that 3 per cent of them want to ride the rails. Certainly there are railroad buffs in this country. I love to see a steam train but I can see them in the museums where they should be. We are moving into the 21st century. We have to make these cuts in the interests of fiscal responsibility. We hope that VIA Rail will respond
and give the service it has to give to isolated communities in this country.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Hon. Member is not implying that VIA Rail should resort to steam locomotives for transportation in this country. The Hon. Member referred to a "use it or lose it" philosophy. Does the Hon. Member feel that that "use it or lose it" philosophy should apply to other modes of transportation in this country such as the seaways, which lose millions each year and airports? I believe the only two airports in Canada that make a profit are the Toronto International Airport and the Vancouver International Airport. If he believes in the "use it or lose it" philosophy for all modes of transportation, what approach does he think this Government should take with regard to these other modes of transportation?


Robert Nesbitt Horner: As far as other modes of transportation, I know they will be subsidized. We have given a commitment and I have quoted the figures on the record of what is being given to subsidize VIA Rail to keep it going and servicing isolated communities. We will always have to subsidize certain modes of transportation.
Canadians have spoken: 84 per cent of Canadians want to travel by automobile, 7 per cent by air, 6 per cent by bus and 3 per cent by rail. If Canadians do not want to ride the trains, then why should all Canadians be forced to subsidize them to the tune of $100 for every ticket? It does not make sense. It is not fiscally responsible. Your reference to VIA Rail going back to steam trains is ludicrous. I don't believe it should, you know it and I know it.


Mr. Thompson:: Mr. Speaker, I think Members on both sides of the House agree that aside from myself, the only other Member in this House who has spoken more strongly on VIA Rail in the last number of weeks would be the Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett). We have spoken on behalf of VIA Rail for a number of reasons. The primary reason is the fact that we live in a very rural part of Canada, Atlantic Canada. We do not have the means of transportation that people in other parts of the country enjoy. Rural parts of Canada are deprived of some of the good highways and air transportation enjoyed in areas such as Ontario and Quebec and other parts of the country and larger metropolitan areas. We deserve a means of transportation that is part of our history and still serves a useful function.
June 9, 1989

We should not get lost in the numbers. There is an old expression: "Lies, damned lies and statistics". It brings home the reality of the railway. You can listen to figures until you are blue in the face, but they do not tell the real story. I am going to tell you why.
In Atlantic Canada there are only two provinces that use the railways. I believe passenger rail disappeared in Newfoundland in 1969 and does not exist in Prince Edward Island. Therefore we are talking only of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
There are approximately 1.5 million people in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. I want to refer to the statistics to point out why they are sometimes misleading. Last year in Atlantic Canada, 224,000 people rode The Ocean with VIA Rail and 240,000 people rode The Atlantic. There are 500,000 people out of a population of 1.5 million who actually use that rail service. In my opinion, that 3 per cent figure is totally ridiculous. This is a figure that certainly justifies a need for that rail line in eastern Canada.
The other point I want to make, especially to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) and the Member for Mississauga West (Mr. Homer), which he addressed as well, is that in certain regions of this country we need a rail line. The subsidization that the Government pays to keep that rail line going in Atlantic Canada is lower than in any other part of the country. The Ocean is subsidized to the tune of $48.86 per passenger, and it is just over $50 for The Atlantic. The subsidy for this form of transportation in Atlantic Canada is far less than the national average.
The cost recovery percentages in relation to The Atlantic Limited indicates that it can be viable. I urge the Government to give VIA the autonomy it needs to be cost efficient and I urge it not to forget about Atlantic Canada. We do need that means of transportation. It is in our roots. It is part of our history. We don't want to lose it. We will continue to use it.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to compliment my hon. friend from Atlantic Canada for those very wise remarks. Those are the issues that we have been trying to impress upon his Government over the last several weeks. I hope that he is more successful than we have been in getting that message across.
Supply
I compliment him on having the veracity to do what he just did for the benefit of all those who need rail service in our country.
Today we discussed the future of passenger rail service in Canada. The future is not promising for VIA Rail, for its workers, and the families of the workers. The future is not promising for small communities which rely on VIA Rail for their livelihoods. The future does not look promising for Canadians who rely on passenger trains for their transportation needs. The future is bleak, and unless the Government accepts the challenge that it faces and meets this problem head on, the future of passenger rail in our country is on its way out. We in the Opposition and some of those on the government side, like the Member who just spoke, must convince the Government to be bold, convince it to be imaginative in its approach, convince it to develop a philosophy and concept for the future of rail transportation in this great country of ours. If the Government does not develop this concept, I fear the loss of passenger rail service in Canada.
There can be no doubt that in developing and accepting this new philosophy, we as Canadians must accept the fact that with the exception of water traffic, moving people in Canada by rail is the least expensive way, the most energy efficient and most environmentally acceptable way throughout this great country of ours. Unless we can continue to do this, the question we must ask ourselves in this debate is not whether we can afford to keep this mode of transportation, but can we afford not to have this method of transportation for the people of Canada?
Today is not the day to look at what happened in the past, 127 years ago, with respect to railroads in Canada. Today is not the day to reiterate that the Government and the Minister who spoke earlier today said less than one year ago that insofar as rail passenger services are concerned, the Government's objective for VIA Rail is the provision of safe, modern, efficient rail passenger services across Canada.
During the last federal election, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said: "The plan is for specific capital programs to enhance the quality and reliability of VIA's services. This Government is concerned about what the removal of rail service can do to a community in Canada".

June 9, 1989
Supply
Today is not the day to draw attention to the fact that the Government held public meetings throughout the country to discuss the pricing structure that could make VIA much more competitive and viable than it is today. Before the final hearing was even held on May 1, VIA's fate had been established and determined by the Budget of April 26, and the cuts that were put in place on that date.
We should not discuss today that as late as last Tuesday we were given further indications of just what the Government's direction would be with respect to the future of passenger rail service in our country. An article in The Globe and Mail outlined the intent of VIA Rail's corporate plan, a plan about which we have heard so much in the House today, which was supposed to be released at the end of this month. This five-year corporate plan calls for the elimination of 48 per cent of all VIA Rail's total operations in Canada. It includes elimination of 115 regional services throughout Canada. We also learned the plan includes the elimination of 22 routes, bearing in mind that there are only 36 routes in all of Canada. These include the elimination of four in western Canada, four in Quebec, seven in Ontario and seven routes in Atlantic Canada, unfortunately another blow to that region.
This plan cannot be denied by the Government. Paul Raynor, VIA Rail's chief of media communications, confirmed yesterday that that was the plan and the information contained in The Globe and Mail article was indeed accurate.
If this was not enough to convince Canadians of the fate of passenger rail service, the statements of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) on Tuesday provide ample evidence of the Government's vision of transportation services in our country. He said in the House that he would not give any commitments or guarantees regarding the future of VIA Rail. He then said outside the House that he would consider shutting down VIA Rail in its entirety if that is what the future for VIA Rail would be in its corporate plan.
How can the Government suggest that it is willing to give consideration to a proposal recommending the elimination of passenger rail service in our country? In good government, corporate plans are not created in a void. This corporate plan is being created in a void, without the input from all the experts on the government side and those people who work in Transport Canada.
Political direction must be given and I intend to use the balance of my time today to talk about the political motivation and where we should be going. Let us look at what the future holds for passenger rail service in Canada if we can develop a strong political leadership and develop a vision. Unfortunately, the Government does not have this vision, nor does it have the strong political leadership. The Government offers no alternatives to the position of closing out VIA Rail.
I have a very good friend, Dr. Tom Heringer, who has been a railway buff all his life. I talked to him last night about this very serious problem for Canada and he informed me that this is no longer a sentimental issue about railways in this country.
He said that if the rail system fails in our country, we will lose the link which keeps and has kept Canada together. It is a reason Canada grew from east to west, not north to south. It was one of the main reasons why Canada became a confederated nation. We stand the chance of losing the unity in Canada if we proceed on this road.
To even consider the elimination of VIA Rail shows once again complete disregard for rural and small town Canada. The small and rural municipalities which will be most severely affected by cuts to VIA Rail were not consulted by VIA Rail's master plan. The 2,500 VIA Rail employees who will lose their jobs were not consulted before this master plan took effect.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, if this shows that this Government is truly compassionate in its nature. The Conservatives will say, and naturally so, what would the Liberals do if they were faced with this problem? I say to them that this is not a Conservative problem, an NDP problem or a Liberal problem. This is a problem that faces all Canadians today.
First, let us look at what we have to build on. We have railway routes in all of Canada. We have the tracks and railbeds which are in good condition. We have railway stations. We have a competent and qualified workforce. We have the passengers who want to use the system. What is lacking is the political will, the leadership, the desire and the vision.
June 9, 1989

Let us be constructive and give the plan to this Government. For a start, I would like to say that the first thing we must do is reactivate a Bill from 1986 called Bill C-97, which gave VIA Rail the opportunity to run its own affairs, a Bill that would have unshackled the hands of VIA and let it run its own affairs like all the airlines were given in Canada.
Then we must look at our resources to provide the only thing that VIA lacks, which is modern equipment to do a good job. How could one imagine Air Canada running today if it were shackled like VIA Rail is shackled and still trying to operate the airlines in our country with DC-3 airplanes?
In Canada we have the facilities to make state of the art engines in London, Ontario. In Montreal, Kingston and Thunder Bay we have facilities to make railway cars. We have enough facilities to manufacture state of the art railway cars. In my riding, we can produce these cars.
I would like to say that if we have the will, the desire and the plan in place, we as Canadians can proceed and make VIA Rail a viable, economic railway for Canada for the next 100 years, as it was in the past.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On questions and comments, the Member for Scarborough Centre.


Pauline Browes: I would like to refer the Member to his comment here today that we need a plan of action. I would just like to make reference by way of comparison to a plan of action which this Government put forth in 1984-85. This Government said to Canada Post, which was running at a tremendous deficit, that we wanted a plan of action for them to balance the books by 1988-89. At that time. Members opposite were screaming about this, that we were going to be reducing our postal service and that this was going to be the end of the Post Office. We stuck to our guns and said we wanted to balance the books in Canada Post by 1988-89. It was a challenge that we put forth to Canada Post. What has happened in those four years is that Canada Post, in 1988-89, has balanced its books.
What we have here, in relation to the financial situation of Canada, is that we have set forth the challenge to VIA Rail to bring forth a plan of action in order to reduce the subsidies, to reduce the dependency that VIA Rail has on the Canadian taxpayer. We have set out and said to VIA Rail that these are a few parameters by which we want to reduce the subsidies to "x" number
Supply
of dollars, and we want them to bring back a plan of action.
I believe that is a very reasonable approach, in light of the Budget restraint that we must put on ourselves and the Canadian taxpayers for the future of Canadians. I ask the Member why he believes that this plan of action, of putting this challenge to some very knowledgeable people who have been working in VIA Rail, would be an unreasonable approach?


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I welcome that question from the Hon. Member. I thought for a while that we were talking about Canada Post today, rather than VIA Rail. If she was listening to my remarks, I did say what this country needs. If we are going to have VIA Rail continue as a viable entity within our country, it is exactly what she stated: a plan of action.
I say to her that Bill C-97, which received first reading on February 24, 1986, was a Bill designed to keep VIA Rail completely free and to unshackle its hands so that it could operate properly and would not have to go to the National Transportation Agency every time it wanted to change its salary structure or rate structure. It did not have to go to the National Transportation Agency if it wanted to change the cups that it served in its dining cars. It would have its own board of directors. It would have its own management philosophy. It would have its own methodology by which to run a viable transportation system in this country.
That Bill went nowhere, at the fault of this Government. I would suggest to the Member that that was the start of the continuing demise of VIA Rail's future in our country. Without that type of legislation, and if she will recall my speech I said that the first thing we have to do if we want VIA Rail to be viable in this country is to first accept Bill C-97 or its replacement and unshackle the hands of VIA Rail so that it can operate independently.
The second thing we have to do is take a look at the assets that VIA Rail has. I went through the good trackbeds and the stations that we have and the people in our workforce who are working for VIA Rail. There is a lot there to build on. All we have to do is go to those facilities which we already have in Canada, the railway arts in London, Ontario, which can produce state of the art engines, or to Kingston and my own plant. Can Car in Thunder Bay, which make state of the art railway cars and produce subway cars for the world. They are esteemed for their quality. The Go-Train cars, the double-

June 9. 1989
Supply
decker cars. I have talked to those people and they can convert those double-decker cars for long term use.
If we do that and adopt some sound business plans which Bill C-97 would give VIA Rail, so that they can buy this equipment and depreciate it like every other normal business in Canada over a period of time, would allow them to use the cars for 20 to 30 years. It would be a viable business. However, they need the opportunity.
Perhaps with that question, our hon. friend would support us in the proposals which we are making for the future of VIA Rail in our country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Hamilton West.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of Canadians that when we speak of transportation, this country has depended upon leaders with vision. It cried out for a government with a vision to the future and created a blueprint for the future. Instead, where do we find ourselves? We find ourselves led by an arrogant, irresponsible government with the "use it or lose it" attitude.
I would like to state from the beginning that thanks to this Government Canadians are about to lose the lifeline which weaves its way through countless small communities across this great land of ours. Canada is a country that can pull together, and pull together we did when we realized Sir John A. Macdonald's national dream. This resulted in connecting our country from east to west and from sea to sea, and is essentially the reason why we are here today.
This Government is now prepared to do away with VIA Rail at a time when it is still the primary source of transportation for thousands of Canadians. Rail transportation is no less important today than it was 100 years ago. The railway system was created not as a luxury for the people but for quite the opposite. It was seen as an inalienable right of Canadians to travel on a rail system that was theirs and would become part of their heritage. So it has become part of our heritage. However, not as the antiquated system from yesteryear, as the Government has allowed it to become, but as an extremely viable and important part of our transportation network.
For many people, train travel is a major mode of transportation for several reasons. The main reason, of course, is obvious. For those who cannot afford the costly price of an airline ticket or the cost of insuring and maintaining a family automobile, the train is the most practical and affordable way to travel. Of course, for many others airports are far too far away and if they do not have a car how are they even to get to the airport? For many communities at present, if it were not for trains living in remote or rural areas might otherwise be impossible. Travel by train is then a necessity, not a luxury.
The Government is committed to removing itself from the responsibility and duty of providing Canadians with rail service. As I have already stated, Canadians have the right to expect that the Government provide them with rail service instead of leaving them in the lurch to the dictates of the market-place where they will have to shell out large sums of money for either air or ground transportation.
Not only have Canadians been misled by the Government regarding certain commitments made in the last election, they have been misled regarding commitments made to VIA Rail. In 1987 the then Minister of Transport stated, "Over the next five years we will be spending over $2.5 billion on VIA Rail". Less than 24 months later the Government is announcing cuts to VIA Rail by hundreds of millions of dollars.
Realizing that many people rely on VIA Rail for transportation, the Government says it is too expensive to justify. In light of that reality, the Government should attempt to deal fairly with the Canadian public and VIA Rail on this very sensitive issue.
There are many things that the Government should be doing with VIA Rail but it is more concerned with abandoning it. For example, if it is the almighty buck that the Government is truly concerned about, then allow VIA Rail to set more competitive rates rather than allow the National Transportation Agency to set limits on the price of a ticket. Just as VIA Rail is due to submit a financial plan regarding the future of the corporation, the agency's chairman, former Deputy Prime Minister Erik Neilsen, has suspended hearings into VIA's pricing policy, an extremely vital process for the viability of the
June 9, 1989

corporation. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) himself concluded that the report of the hearings would form a part of a comprehensive reassessment of VIA Rail.
Not only would the loss of VIA Rail be devastating to small rural communities in terms of tourism and trade, but it would result in the loss of thousands of jobs. Mr. Tom McGrath, head of the largest union inside VIA Rail, estimates that 2,500 of VIA's 7,000 employees will lose their jobs as a result of the elimination of lines. A leaked VIA business plan obtained this week by The Globe and Mail estimated the job loss figure to be closer to 3,500.
In Moncton, New Brunswick, 1,200 jobs were lost in 1988 because CN closed its repair shops. The elimination of VIA routes would mean the city would lose another 200 jobs, plus $20 million in spin-offs. It is in small communities such as these where workers are being forced by the Government into unemployment insurance lines when they would rather be working on the railroad all the livelong day.
As well, the business plan calls for the total elimination of regional services such as routes from Toronto to Niagara Falls. Again, if such lines are not profitable, why not simply reduce the number of runs per week but keep the lines open for those who really need them instead of calling for their total eradication? In fact, the Government at the very least should have taken the lead from countries such as Britain and France and implemented high-speed trains in the major corridors.
Would it not be wonderful to hop on the train in Montreal and take it to Toronto in just two hours? Major corridor routes would be the answer for high-speed trains.
The next point I would like to address is in relation to subsidies. It is not only VIA Rail that operates with subsidies. We have heard it in speeches before this one. Airlines and bus companies have also operated on a subsidy basis. The federal Government contributes significant funds to these modes of transportation, although indirectly. For example, many buses operate on a subsidized basis because the roads on which they travel are for the major part subsidized by the Government. Each year the federal Government contributes $6 billion to road construction and repair. If VIA Rail were to be elimi-
Supply
nated, heavier usage by buses and other vehicles would dramatically and certainly increase this $6 billion figure.
Airlines receive a similar indirect subsidy. This Government not only subsidizes Canadian airlines but it allowed Boeing to purchase de Havilland at a steal. What the airlines receive is the ability to fly in and out of Canadian airports with the assistance of government-paid tarmacs, terminals, hangars, navigation and weather equipment essential to do their business.
If Canadians cannot travel by train, then what is their alternative? The Government tried to answer that question a few years back when it announced the deregulation of the Canadian airline industry. Canadians know all too well the problems with regard to air transportation under this Government. Deregulation and privatization has meant not only relinquishing what used to be the public domain, but has also meant an abdication of authority and responsibility by this Government for transportation.
In the Main Estimates for Transport Canada are included great expenditures which I am sure the Government could get around and perhaps pass on to VIA Rail. For example, at Pearson International the estimates include an additional duty-free outlet at a cost of $572,000, upgrading of floodlights at a cost of $858,000 and a long-term development study at a cost of $402,000. These three features alone total some $1.8 million.
The point I am trying to make is that while it is acceptable to preach fiscal responsibility, it is contrary to the principles of fairness that Canadians should be led to believe another thing.
I see you signalling me that my time is almost up, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) stated that Amtrak is purchasing 100 passenger cars from Bombardier in Quebec. The catch, of course, is that the purchase is being partly financed by the Export Development Corporation, a corporation of Her Majesty. Why is it that when it comes to an American company operating the same mode of transportation the Government is thinking of phasing out in Canada, it can find Canadian taxpayers' money to finance the operation?

June 9. 1989
Supply
In closing, the strength of our national community is under siege from an arrogant, uncaring and irresponsible Government. I am concerned that 75 years of effort to build a strong, unified federal foundation is crumbling under the destructive policy actions of this Government.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member for Hamilton West (Mr. Keyes) would not want to leave the impression with the people who may be watching the debate or reading it down the road in Hansard that the Toronto International Airport is having changes made to its structure as a result of grants being handed out to it. It is well known, if the Hon. Member were to be frank with the House, that Toronto International Airport is a profit centre. Those expenditures, of course, come from the moneys earned at the airport through landing fees and other charges to the various airlines for the facilities they use there. I know he would not want to leave that hanging and that he would want to make sure that it is understood by those watching this debate today.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Who built it?


John Horton McDermid: The Government did. Do you know what is going on there now? The new terminal is being built by the private sector. It is not the Government that is putting the money into it and it is working well. The terminal is going up very, very quickly. We look forward to it being opened next year.
Let us get back to VIA Rail, because that is what we are here to talk about today. The Hon. Member said that the Government was arrogant and irresponsible. When we were elected to office, one of the things that was said to me by the electors in my community of Brampton, time and time again, was to take a long hard look at the expenditures of Government and see where you can manage the business of Government much better. When you have a company that is under the aegis of the federal Government, costing the taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars, I believe it is incumbent upon the Government to examine that, to see if we can improve that situation. Because of the changes that we are going through in our economy and in the structures of managing Government, it is incumbent upon us to examine these things.
Does the Hon. Member think it is arrogant and irresponsible for a Government to look into a company to try and improve the situation where every passenger, whether he or she is travelling from Brampton to Toronto or Toronto to Vancouver, is being subsidized by $100? Is that irresponsible and arrogant?


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: I am not sure whether I even want to thank the Member for his question, Mr. Speaker, because, yes, it is arrogant and it is irresponsible. It is arrogant and irresponsible when a Government outlines its fiscal plan in a Budget in April in which massive cuts by millions of dollars to rail passenger services in this country are laid on the table before a report, at the cost of $4 million to the taxpayer, is even presented to that same Government. Certainly that is irresponsible, Mr. Speaker, absolutely irresponsible.
The Minister speaks of the Toronto International Airport as well, Mr. Speaker, the terminal building built there. You know what the Government's game plan is. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) says, "Well, now we are considering, since there is a terminal there, maybe we should put a third or a fourth runway there as well." Isn't that terrific? Is that going to ease congestion?


John Horton McDermid: Are you opposed?


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Is that going to create more traffic on highways 427, 403? You are darned right it is going to create more traffic. Talk about congesting a congested situation, Mr. Speaker, it couldn't become worse. It just couldn't become worse. The Government has spent all that money-


Mr. Corbeil:: Are you opposed?


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: I am opposed to it because I have for you, sir, a beautiful alternative, a fiscally responsible alternative. We have spent some $50 million odd at upgrading an airport at Hamilton and the Ontario Government has committed itself-it had the vision-to $61 million in road access to that airport. Now here is a vision for you, Mr. Speaker. Can you imagine Hamilton Airport as the alternative to Toronto Pearson International Airport, with an expenditure that would be fiscally responsible? And now, which is set in motion, are the high-speed trains to run between Windsor, bypassing Hamilton Airport, to Pearson International Airport in Toronto, someone could get off his international flight and if a connection has to be made, he hops on a 150-mile an
June 9, 1989

hour train and he is in Toronto in no time. Is that not visionary, Mr. Speaker?


John Horton McDermid: Where do you put it?


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: The Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) has not invited me to his office to hear me out. I can understand that. The Government has a plan. When we consider not only the situation with the airports and not only the consideration of the rail passenger service in this country, Mr. Speaker, can you imagine, up come all those trains and all those passenger routes? What is a person to do? Should he jump in the family car? How many millions upon millions of more cars-


John Horton McDermid: Not very many.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: -are going to be on our highways, putting out all this carbon monoxide. It is horrible.


John Horton McDermid: Only 3 per cent take the railway, 84 per cent are in cars now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments has expired. I recognize the Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre on debate.


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support for the Government's decision on VIA Rail.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: What decision?


Pauline Browes: As my colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) has stated, Canadian taxpayers no longer can afford to pay the ever increasing subsidies to VIA. Last year these subsidies reached an unprecedented $641 million. This represents an average of $100 for each passenger who boards the train.


Robert Daniel Nault: That is not true.


Shirley Maheu: Talk about the facts.


Pauline Browes: Subsidies have escalated and the number of passengers has declined. This trend began in the 1950s and 1960s as travellers abandoned rail in favour of other modes of transportation. The number of passengers travelling on rail has declined by about two-thirds since a post-war high in 1947.
Each of us in this Chamber has memories of riding on the train. In 1947 my father was a Member of Parliament and I have very fond memories of taking the train with my parents to come to Ottawa to see my father speak in the House of Commons. It was a short trip. It was only
Supply
from Cobourg Station in Ontario to Ottawa, but it was a weekly trip that my father took.
When we think of memories we think of just 50 years ago, in 1939, when the late King and the Queen Mother travelled across Canada by train. The Queen Mother, of course, is commemorating that trip by returning to Ottawa on July 5 this year. There will be a very fine reception on the front lawn of Parliament Hill. I invite all Canadians to be with the Queen Mother on July 5 to commemorate the occasion of that trip of 50 years ago.
We as Canadians and as Members of Parliament share those memories of another day. Times have changed. We have to look at the present and look to the future.
In recognizing the problem as early as 1961, a royal commission on transportation recommended drastic rationalization of rail passenger services. Rationalization has been effected over time but clearly, with VIA subsidies at such alarmingly high levels, further measures are indeed needed.
This poor performance is despite expenditures of about $5 billion since VIA's creation in 1977. Of this amount, more than $1 billion went to capital investment in an effort to improve the quality and reliability of VIA's services. Of the $1 billion, more than $600 million has been spent since 1984 on major capital programs. For instance, this Government funded the purchase of 59 new high horsepower diesel locomotives for assignment to the transcontinental routes. The delivery of the first order was completed last summer and the delivery of the second order is under way. The Government also has approved the modernization of up to 100 train cars in the transcontinental fleet. These cars will receive new electric heat and air conditioning systems in order to make it more pleasant for passengers. This will restore the cars to like new conditions.
The construction of a network of equipment maintenance facilities across the country is almost completed. Facilities at Montreal and Toronto cost more than $200 million. They are state of the art in an effort to improve operational efficiency and cut the high cost of maintaining equipment.

June 9, 1989
Supply
Station and track improvements were also approved. For instance, track upgrading between Toronto and Ottawa allowed journey times to be reduced to four hours instead of the five hours that it was.
The investments that are already in place did not, however, yield lower subsidies as had been expected. The Government did its part and VIA did its best to improve the delivery of its product, but the fact is that people did not take the train. Canadians demonstrated their preference for other means of transportation. In fact, rail passenger service represents only about 3 per cent of all inter-city passenger travel in Canada.
While some have pointed to an upswing in VIA's performance in 1988 and suggest that now is not the time to cut VIA's budget, the reality is as follows. While VIA's ridership did increase by 10 per cent and revenues went up by 13 per cent in 1988, the 1988 ridership increase is being compared to 1987 when ridership plunged by 7 per cent to its lowest level ever of 5.9 million passengers. Ridership in 1988 is in fact almost identical to 1986 and 20 per cent less than was the case in 1981.
Revenues for 1988 did increase by 13 per cent, or $27 million. At the same time, operating costs increased by 15 per cent, or $94 million.
The result was the Government subsidies to VIA for its operations alone had to be increased by $68 million in 1988.
This means that for every additional dollar earned by VIA in 1988, the Government at the same time has had to disburse an additional $2.62. Clearly, the Government had to take action.
The decision to reduce the subsidy was a difficult one. It was an unavoidable one.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: It was irresponsible.


Pauline Browes: It was a very responsible one. There was the example that I just mentioned a few minutes ago. It was a very responsible action to have Canada Post put forth a business plan. At the same, time we have asked VIA Rail to put forth a business plan. We are looking forward to receiving it in the very near future.
To demonstrate its commitment to expenditure reduction and restraint and to a new regime for passenger rail service in this country, the Government has decided to
significantly reduce the subsidy it pays to VIA Rail from 1989-1990 onward.
VIA's tough but challenging budget limits are $541 million in 1989-1990; $435 million in 1990-1991; $394 million in 1991-1992; $275 million in 1992-1993; and $250 million in 1993-1994. These limits will yield savings of $500 million during the next five years.
VIA has been asked to submit a new business plan by the end of June. It is to set out the course of action with respect to the new Budget realities. In preparing its plan, VIA will consider all options to reduce its losses. Those options could include productivity, improvements, increased fares, abandonment of routes, service reductions on some routes, as well as the transfer of services to third parties.
Under any option, VIA has been directed to maintain service to truly isolated communities along nine remote routes in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. Such VIA remote area routes are Jasper-Prince Rupert; The Pas-Lynn Lake; Waboden-Churchill; Winnipeg-Churchill; Winnipeg-Capreol; Sudbury-White River; Senneterre-Cochrane; Montreal-Sennet-erre; Montreal-Jonquiere. Those are the routes that have been set out as being on truly isolated lines and should be maintained.
There have been no decisions taken yet about the future of any other VIA routes. At the same time, no options have been eliminated. The only constraints placed on VIA are to provide service to truly isolated communities along the remote routes as I have mentioned, and of course to live within its new budget.
The Government is anxiously awaiting VIA's business plan. I am sure they are working on it even today. On the basis of VIA's business plan, the Government will decide how best to proceed.
I support the Government's decision. Clearly, VIA's operations must be rationalized because of the huge burden they impose on Canadian taxpayers. The Government is acting in accordance with sound fiscal management and sound transportation policy consistent with costs and indeed consistent with usage.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment on the Budget cuts to VIA Rail and announced cancellation in VIA Rail's service on Vancouver Island.
June 9, 1989

Just three years ago, VIA opened a beautiful new station in Victoria. It is a heritage station that is a credit to the whole community. Now that service is going to be cut.
The effect of that cut is going to be very detrimental on all communities between Victoria and Courtenay. It will have a particular effect on the beautiful little town of Chemainus, which has been reborn as a tourist attraction. It is only about an hour train ride from Victoria, which has its own tourism base. That train provided many opportunities for tourists to access Chemainus.
It also will have a detrimental effect on the towns of Parksville and Qualicum. There are beautiful beaches there. Tourists take the train there. It will have a detrimental effect on Courtenay where the resort community of Mount Washington is. That is a ski resort. All these communities will be affected negatively.
The Government's response to this is that the usage is down. I can tell you why usage is down. It is because previous cuts to VIA Rail has reduced access to the ticket office. The ticket office is only open for two hours each day. During those two hours the line-ups are 50 feet long. People want to use the train, but the Government will not let them.
What is the Government going to do about the communities on Vancouver Island that will suffer the negative impact of the cuts in service? What is the response of the Government to effectively cutting the service so that there is no access to the ticket offices?


Pauline Browes: The Hon. Member mentioned heritage sites. Canadians can be proud of the beautiful heritage site train stations across the country. Having worked in the Ministry of the Environment for a number of years, I had an opportunity to have some of those train stations designated as heritage sites. Indeed, if they are not being used as train stations, they are being preserved and used as historical sites that many of us can visit and use in other ways.
In relation to operating subsidies that the Member speaks about, I would like to draw to her attention some statistics about operating subsidies that the Government of Canada has put forth in relation to VIA Rail.
Supply
In 1984 the operating subsidy was $458 million. In 1988, the operating subsidy was $509 million. The Hon. Member asked the question, but did not wait to hear the answer because she has already left the House. I am a little surprised that a Member would ask a question and within two minutes after-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask that the Hon. Member not comment. There could be any reason why the Member may have left the House, perhaps to go to a committee, or for another reason and it should not be commented upon.


Pauline Browes: The actual operating subsidy for 1988 was $509 million. Therefore, Members can see that even in the last four years there has been a remarkable increase in the amount of operating subsidies.
As far as capital payments are concerned, in 1987 they were $181 million; in 1988 they were $126 million. We have tried very hard to make this operation work. VIA has tried very hard to make this operation work. The fact is that we cannot turn back the clock and say that everyone should take the train as they did 100 years ago, or as they did in 1947.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saanich- Gulf Islands on a point of order.


Lynn Hunter: It may be of interest to the House that the reason I had to leave was that I had a long-distance phone call awaiting me. I was listening on the TV monitor to the response of the Hon. Member.


Pauline Browes: I know the Hon. Member represents a riding in British Columbia. I do appreciate her returning to the House at her first convenience. I hope she does keep in mind the statistics to which I referred, and the actual increase that has taken place in the last four or five years under this administration and the amount of additional taxpayers' money. Even though we have put forth this additional amount of moneys, at the same time the ridership has decreased.
We have to look at reality. Members opposite have to look at the reality of the wishes of people. They want to travel by road and by airplane. They want to travel by means other than trains. As much as we like the idea of taking the train, as much as we have our memories that this is a wonderful way to travel across Canada and see the beautiful geography, the fact is that people are not taking the train.

June 9, 1989
Supply


Ronald MacDonald: I listened with a great deal of interest to the Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre (Mrs. Browes) as she eloquently tried to talk about the complete dissection and gutting of a piece of national infrastructure. If it was not so laughable, I would have been yelling across the aisle.
One of the things I find despicable in the policy of the Government is how it has intentionally misled Canadians about the future of VIA Rail. I want to remind the Member opposite that in 1985 the then Minister of Transport, currently the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) stated: "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".
Earlier this year the Government decided, for some strange reason, that there needed to be an inquiry into the pricing structure of VIA Rail to find out whether or not it was lessening competition with the bus lines. This was conducted, even though two or three previous investigations by the NTA had found out that the pricing structure of VIA Rail had no negative impact whatsoever on the profitability of the bus lines. Therefore, the Government set about having, I suspect, a multimillion-dollar task force to go across the country and ask Canadians: "What do you think about VIA Rail? What do you think about its pricing structure?"
I want to remind the Hon. Member opposite that the Chairman of that task force was a former Member of this House, a former Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Erik Nielsen who, in September, 1985 chaired a task force of the Hon. Member's Government.
That task force had already decided on the fate of VIA Rail. The task force stated: "Until the long-term future of its existing services is determined, postpone major capital investments in new equipment for VIA Rail other than that which is essential for transcontinental and remote services". It had already decided to have a self-fulfilling prophecy with VIA Rail. It had already decided not to invest the moneys necessary in order that Canadians could travel in comfort and on time in VIA trains.
The task force also recommended the following for cost recovery: "For the transcontinental services, a cost-recovery target of 60 per cent is to be achieved by the end of 1988 with a reduction in frequency of service where this target is not met." The decision was made long before the task force was ever set up to go about
and deceive the Canadian people and pretend that they would have some input into the decision of the Government on the future of VIA Rail.
In essence, we have a government report which suggests that the major capital investment needed to decrease the operating costs be postponed, and that an ultimatum be issued to increase revenue to 40 per cent of the cost or the federal Government was going to pull the rug out from underneath.
In the actions of the Government, what I find particularly disgusting is that it intentionally tried to tell Canadians that things were other than the way they were. It set up a task force which appeared in the Halifax-Dartmouth area. That task force was chaired by Mr. Erik Nielsen, the man who wrote the infamous document which is the death knell of VIA Rail. When the task force appeared in that area, it gave the impression that no decisions had been made.
I want to ask the Member opposite how she can justify the Government setting up this phoney task force for this sham across the country to deceive people on VIA Rail when the Government had already made its mind up to dispose of VIA Rail?


Pauline Browes: The Member opposite started his remarks by quoting a person I believe to be one of the most outstanding individuals in terms of transportation policy in this country. The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister of Canada was the Minister of Transport. That was quoted in 1985, and I appreciate those comments made about the Minister at that time. But the difference between this Government and the administration prior to 1984 is this: Everything was stagnant, remaining the same, doing things the old way. What we have done is to take a look at things in a new way. That was 1985. Things have changed. There has been a lot of water under the bridge since then. We are responding to Canadians instead of burying our heads in the sand and doing things the same old way. That is why in 1988 the people of Canada stuck with this Government. For the first time in 100 years, a Government was re-elected with a majority government. That is a remarkable accomplishment.
I am just surprised that the Member opposite would be quoting from five years ago and thinking it relevant to 1989. We are in a fiscal position that we must look at in a different light in order to balance the books down the line for future Canadians. We will respond to the way
June 9, 1989

people of Canada want to use their transportation facilities.


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to tell Canadians what this Government has not been telling them, that the country's passenger rail service is in jeopardy and will be extinct in a short while like some animals we know. This Government has shown again that its priorities are misplaced.
We keep referring to this country's first Prime Minister because it is very important to go back into history, as the Member opposite has done, to show there was a dream. Individuals in this House are here because they have a vision and a dream of their own. His dream was to link this great land of ours from sea to sea. Surely Mr. Macdonald is turning over in his grave today with the realization that his own Party is destroying his dream of a national railway system. The railway industry has long been seen as a strong symbol of national unity. With one swing of the budget axe, Canada's strongest symbol of unity is being destroyed.
Many towns and cities were built around the railway industry. Whole communities were developed to service the thousands of workers on the rail line. Small businesses, hotels and restaurants sprung up almost overnight to cater to the needs of the railway workers. The national railway system contributed to the development of western Canada. How can this Government ignore the fact that Canada emerge as a great nation as a result of the railway industry?
Canadians learned this week that VIA Rail's corporate plan for 1989-1993 recommends that some 22 routes be eliminated, six routes will see reduced service and only six of the remote routes will be left untouched. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) says he is willing to contemplate shutting down VIA Rail's passenger service. This Government continues to ignore the fact that ridership has increased. It continues to ignore the fact that VIA Rail's profit margin has increased and that a reversing trend after two years of falling performance has begun.
It is quite clear to Canadians that this Government continues the trend of not being up front with them. Prior to the November 1988 election campaign, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised to enhance the quality and reliability of VIA Rail service. Once again
Supply
the Government has gone back on its word. Canadians know that this Government cannot be believed or trusted. What we have here, as I have said on numerous occasions in this House, is yet another broken promise.
The elimination of the transcontinental railroad between Montreal and Sudbury and Toronto-Winnipeg-Calgaiy cuts right through the heart of northern Ontario and more specifically northwestern Ontario. Many small rural and remote communities depend heavily on passenger rail service to get to major centres. Three towns in my riding will be adversely affected. The towns of Ignace, Dryden and Kenora will no longer have passenger rail service under this proposed plan. These towns will lose approximately 50 jobs as a result. The Minister may say 50 jobs is not a significant number. But 50 jobs in small town Canada is equivalent to at least 500 jobs in a major centre. How many more jobs will be lost as a result of these measures? What will the Government do to ensure that workers in the railway industry will have a job in the near future?
The Town of Ignace is a one-industry town. The Lion Lake Mine will be closing its doors soon, putting many people out of work. Now the Government is slapping this already depressed area in the face by eliminating passenger rail service. The future of the Town of Ignace is questionable. The town council is working hard at diversifying its economy but the elimination of passenger rail service through Ignace undoubtedly will hurt.
This Government is closing the door on northern Ontario. It is telling the people of northern Ontario that it is not prepared to do business, nor is it prepared to protect what is left of this region. Residents in my riding and throughout the whole northern region of Ontario now understand why the Prime Minister failed to appoint a cabinet Minister from northern Ontario. This Government is not committed to regional development.
The Minister of Transport stated recently that the federal Government is considering spending more money on highways to offset budget cuts to the passenger rail system. There is no doubt that roads in northern Ontario need upgrading. As my learned friend beside me will tell you, the Trans-Canada Highway between Winnipeg and Ottawa is in bad need of repair. It should be four-lane from at least the Manitoba border to Thunder Bay. How long will residents in northern Ontario have to wait to see their roads upgraded? Considering the record of this Government, I hate to hold my breath because I

June 9, 1989
Supply
don't believe I will be around. This is going to be another broken promise.
The Government could have chosen alternatives. Let me outline a few. VIA Rail has been paying CN and CP to support infrastructure costs of the freight rail system. In the last four years, VIA paid over $1 billion to these two railway companies. VIA has managed to reduce this figure to $100 million a year by taking over the maintenance of its own equipment. It seems to me that the Government could have introduced legislation which it did start to introduce in 1986 but it died where it was after first reading. It would have allowed CN and CP to forgive this annual payment given that the rail industry in this country is subsidized by the taxpayers. This initiative would have given VIA Rail the needed revenues to upgrade its equipment and its service.
Services have already been reduced in my riding contrary to what the Minister has been saying. The Sioux Lookout train which is in one of the most remote areas in northern Ontario has been reduced to two days a week from three days per week. Sioux Lookout is located in northwestern Ontario and serves as the focal point for many of the native communities which can only be reached by air. Many of the residents in these native communities fly to Sioux Lookout and travel by train to points south.
There are many communities in my riding which are not served by ground transportation at all. The only link to the outside world is by train. Communities such as Valora, Allan Water and many others will no longer have access to passenger rail. There are no roads linking these communities. Are they destined to be cut off from the rest of Canada? For many of the communities that have small air strips, there are no commercial flights servicing them. How can this Government justify cutting passenger rail service to these communities?
The only alternative for many residents of northern Ontario is to travel by train. Many students travelling to and from universities use passenger rail service. Many senior citizens travel by train given there is no bus service between communities in northwestern Ontario. How does the Government expect these people to get around? Many of my constituents cannot afford the luxury of flying. Furthermore, the Minister of Transport
has done nothing to alleviate their concerns over air safety in our region.
The Minister and Prime Minister are saying that Canadians are not using VIA Rail. Nothing could be further from the truth. Recently a constituent called my office to complain that he has not been able to get a reservation to head north because the trains were booked solid. Canadians are using VIA Rail. So why are they going to lose it? There is no justification for the harsh measures announced in VIA Rail's corporate plan.
The National Transportation Agency was holding public hearings across the country to review VIA Rail's pricing policy. These hearings have now stopped as a result of the Government's measures. The Government has a knack for putting the cart before the horse. It introduced legislation on a new accident investigation board before waiting for the results of the judicial review of the Gander crash and the judicial inquiry into the Dryden crash. It announced policy revisions to the Indian and Inuit Post-Secondary Assistance Program before consulting with the Indian people of Canada.
The elimination of VIA Rail's passenger service in this country is a national tragedy. The one link holding this country together from coast to coast is being dismantled piece by piece. If the Government proceeds with this plan, Canada's century old railway industry will be destroyed. Sir John A. Macdonald's vision of a national railway system will be forever lost in a fog of Tory mismanagement and unwillingness to understand what really is important to Canadians.
I suggest to Members opposite that they give this business a viable chance. There is legislation that could be put into place, and there is a legitimate opportunity for a railway system to work in Canada. But it needs the political will of the politicians to allow it to have a plan that will be effective and cost efficient.
In the last 20 years we have seen nothing of the sort. VIA has not had a chance from the beginning. We know that 60 per cent of Canadians are dead against the Government's proposal. They are in favour of trying to establish a plan for this very viable mode of transportation. If we do that, as parliamentarians, I think Canadians will accept it. They will start to use those trains if
June 9, 1989

they become reliable and efficient as they should have been many years ago.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, does my hon. friend opposite know how much capital it would take to put VIA Rail into that superb world-class condition that he and members of his Party talk about? What does a high speed line between Windsor and Quebec City mean in terms of a dedicated track, with underpasses and overpasses and so on? Where does he propose to get that money?
Of course, there are many competing demands. We need more money for research and development, for education, and for other modes of transportation. Is it the official Liberal policy that they would borrow that money and add it to the yearly deficit, therefore the national debt?


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, I know that is the official Tory line these days. It is the deficit, and to heck with the regions of Canada.
It is interesting that the Member asked the question. I might say that I am surprised that Members from western Canada have not made speeches today on behalf of their constituents because it is very important to those individuals in western Canada to have a transportation system of this nature.
The Hon. Member asked a very intelligent question concerning the source of funds. The Hon. Member should consider why VIA Rail is not cost efficient and why the subsidy is so high. First, the suggestion by the Government that it cost $600 million a year in subsidies for Canadians is not true. The fact is a little over $100 million of that money goes from one Government pocket to the next because it is a transfer for the use of track on CN alone, not to mention CP Rail. It is $100 million for the use ol that track. That is a subsidy Canadians are paying which, if removed, would only make $500 million. That is just a start.
The other problem is that VIA's hands are tied. I already stated that legislation was proposed in 1986, Bill C-97, which specifically stated a legitimate way VIA could be put into a management position where it would not have to go to the NTA to change the size of the coffee cups. It would have been able to legitimately do
Supply
business and make those business decisions to make it a viable operation.
Amtrak has done that in the United States. Its subsidies have been reduced significantly because it has been given a mandate and the ability to run on tracks without having to pay an exorbitant price to do so.
It is important that the Member first learn a little about how VIA's hands were tied and why it never got off the ground. I will admit to all Members of the House that the Liberal Party had a part to play in not putting VIA on a firm base. I might say that now we have a renewed and invigorated membership and caucus and we are looking at new ways to make this viable. We ask Members opposite to do the same and not consider deficit reduction in a vacuum.
It is very important for them to realize that if this operation is given a chance we can make it work. We are not suggesting that it can completely remove the subsidy because we would be kidding ourselves to suggest that. However, I believe that subsidy could be reduced substantially if VIA is given a chance.
The Hon. Member asks how much it would cost to make this a viable operation. Let me quote what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) said the other day concerning VIA's plans for a high-speed link. He said: "It may be kept. A $3 billion high-speed rail link between Montreal and Toronto may survive drastic cuts in the rest of Canada's rail passenger service". Out of what side of the mouth are they talking? First the Tories say there is a big deficit and we must get rid of this railway because it costs too much. How can they spend $3 billion on this one link where these individuals-and I hope I do not offend some Members from Montreal and Toronto-already have a link. They have the ability to go by air. We in the regions do not have a choice. It is either swim or walk.
I suggest that we look at the alternatives to make this operation viable. I know we can do so if there is a vision and a dream as their leader, Mr. Macdonald, had in the very early years of this great countiy of ours.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The reason some Members may think the question and comment period is short is because it is only five minutes.

June 9, 1989
Supply


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take part in an historical debate, for we are dealing here with much more than mere cuts to VIA Rail subsidies. We are in fact dealing with the future of passenger train service as well as the overall problem of passenger service which society will have to lace in the 21st century.
The Govemement of Canada has made its choice. It is going to sacrifice rail transportation which was the Confederation catalyst on the altar of deficit reduction. It has slashed its subsidies to VIA Rail, but has failed to provide the regions which are greatly dependant on this means of transportation with alternate solutions.
Just now, Canada is facing a crisis as far as highway and air traffic is concerned. Both are overextended, so that the safety of Canadians is being jeopardized. One needs only mention the overcrowding of Toronto's Pearson airport and the inadequate number of air traffic controllers everywhere in Canada.
Because this Government is suffering from short sightedness and obsessed with deficit reduction, our country will have to face a massive transportation crisis.
Mr. Speaker, inconsistency is the hallmark of this Government. In spite of the fact that Chairman Lawrence Hannigan claimed in VIA Rail annual report that 1988 was the best year ever in the history of that corporation, the Government has drastically reduced its assistance to VIA Rail. This cut will amount to $100 million the very first year and more than $300 million over five years.
Why is the Government scuttling VIA Rail when the corporation indicated in its annual report that the level of financing of its operations in 1988 will be 8 per cent lower for instance than in 1982, and when VIA Rail is about to achieve financial self-sufficiency?
This year, 500.000 more people used VIA Rail then last year. This 9.4 per cent increase in ridership and the 12.9 per cent increase in revenues contradict the Prime Minister's claims that Canadians don't take the train when they are travelling.
I would like to quote Mr. Hannigan in this respect:
The improvement which started last year has been sustained. The
rising trend with respect to punctuality, ridership and revenues has
been clear and constant since the fall of 1987.
And he added:
Our growth rate exceeds that for the travel market in Canada as a
whole.
Mr. Speaker, instead of helping the corporation achieve prosperity and financial independence, the present Government is destroying our national passenger rail service and wasting the public's precious tax dollars, because it will finally kill off VIA Rail if it does not maintain its contribution at a sufficiently effective level.
Taxpayers will have to pay for this Government's stubborness, but the people most directly affected will be passengers and workers. In Montreal alone, nearly 3,000 jobs are at stake. Where are the ministers from Montreal in this Government? They are nowhere. They have been gagged!
In an interview that appeared in Le Devoir, the Quebec Minister of Transport said that Ottawa's inconsistency was strangling Quebec's transportation industry.
The Minister also informed Quebecers about the federal Government's plans to abandon nearly 1,000 kilometres of railway lines in Quebec that are dedicated to freight, in addition to the decision to drop VIA Rail's regional services and reduce services in the corridors that include Montreal.
What will happen to workers in the maintenance workshops at Pointe-Saint-Charles? The decline of Quebec's railway industry also threatens 20,000 jobs in the small and medium-sized businesses that operate as subcontractors in this sector.
The schedule of cuts that appeared in the Globe and Mail indicates that the 33 lines that make up Quebec's regional transportation network will be dropped while all VIA Rail activities in the Maritimes will be shut down.
Jobs in Montreal are particularly at risk, since Pointe-Saint-Charles was the principal maintenance centre for Eastern Canada, ever since the plant we had in New Brunswick was closed.
Once again, for the sake of free enterprise, this Government is destroying, bit by bit, the very foundation of our country. In fact, the present Government has no heart, Mr. Speaker. It is reducing regional development assistance, eliminating regional railway services, and
June 9, 1989

soon the people in those regions will have to leave their homes to move to the main urban centres.
Mr. Speaker, this Government's motto is: If it doesn't make money, close it! No room for compassion. This country was built against all economic principles, but it survived and prospered because of the dedication of Canadians. Today our country is the envy of the whole world.
After the Wilson Budget, it is obvious that this Government's only law is the law of the jungle: The strongest will prevail. It is destroying our social programs one by one, is leaving Canadians to their own resources, and this philosophy also being applied to our country's remote areas. The strongest will survive and the weakest will disappear. At this rate, Canada will soon consist of Montreal, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver, and the regions will close down one after the other, just like Schefferville.
VIA Rail is so popular among Canadians that 89 percent of them believe that it should continue giving adequate service to the people of this country. This privatization-crazed government is dismantling VIA Rail little by little and surreptitiously.
The budget speeches make clear the government's real motives. It is cutting VIA Rail's budget and asking it to rationalize its operations by increasing its fares, reducing its services and closing or selling off major components of its network. Once again, the cat is out of the bag! As in Air Canada's case, the government is abdicating its constitutional responsibility to ensure adequate transportation services for all Canadians.
According to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard), if Canadians do not use VIA Rail, they will lose it. VIA Rail's annual report, which the Minister might be well advised to read, shows an increase in ridership and revenues. For the first time, this corporation is coming to the end of the tunnel and its future is looking brighter. But the Wilson budget puts a damper on this new-found vigour.
How can you possibly expect to attract more Canadians by closing down or reducing services while at the same time increasing fares?
The Government's actions leads me to the following conclusions:
Supply
The Ministers from Montreal are not up to scratch. The Government wants to get rid of VIA Rail, thereby abdicating its constitutional responsibility in the area of transportation. The well-being of this country's outlying regions is not a priority for this Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Terrebonne (Mr. Robitaille) on a question or comment.


Mr. Robitaille:: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by the Hon. Member for Saint-Laurent. I would still like to make a few comments and ask her some questions.
The Hon. Member often pointed out to us that the number of users rose by 9 per cent and revenues by 13 per cent. But I think that she omitted a serious fact: operating costs also rose by 15 per cent.
Revenues rose by $26 million, as she said, but operating costs rose by $94 million. As I see it, if you take the difference, subtracting one from the other, there is a $68-million deficit. She seems to announce that as though it were good news. Sixty-eight million more! Operating costs exceeded revenues by $68 million and she says that is good news. I do not see what she finds good about that.
She says that the Government is obsessed with reducing the deficit, Mr. Speaker. Yes, we are obsessed and we will keep on being obsessed. Unfortunately, in the past, the former Liberal Government did not have the same obsession. Otherwise, we would not find ourselves in the kind of problem we have today and must deal with.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member also refers to the Conservative Government's privatization mania. Since she comes from the riding of Saint-Laurent, it seems to me that she should be proud of the Conservative Government's privatization mania. Remember Canadair, Mr. Speaker. When we spoke of privatizing Canadair, here in this' House, the Liberals brought out the same arguments for us. Canadair would lose jobs. Look at Canadair's success today, Mr. Speaker. And he talks to us about privatization mania.
Mr. Speaker, I just believe that, as the Minister of Transport said in his speech, $600 million a year to subsidize VIA Rail is $100 to subsidize each user and we are talking about reducing this by $500 million over 4 or 5 years. VIA Rail is being asked to make an effort, as are all Canadians.

June 9, 1989
Supply
I will just ask the Hon. Member a little question: Do you find it is good management and a good solution when, in spite of all the efforts VIA Rail has made, revenues are up by $26 million but operating costs have risen by $94 million, with an ever-growing deficit that now stands at $68 million? Do you consider that good management, Madam?


Shirley Maheu: I thank the Hon. Member for Terrebonne. I simply wanted to raise a couple of matters. Speaking of deficit, did this Government forget the deficit doubled over the last four years? Have they also forgotten VIA Rail in 1987


Jean-Marc Robitaille: You are not answering my question!


Shirley Maheu: You expressed concern with the Canadian deficit. Well, let me repeat the question. Who doubled that deficit? Is it not true that VIA Rail, despite its deficits, paid the CN and CP $179 million in 1987 and $105 million in 1988? How is a deficit computed? They suggest the corporation is not profitable. If we are to compare for instance VIA Rail's equipment that on average is 25 or 30 years old with AMTRACK's 16-year-old equipment, then the comparison is based on specifics, otherwise stop comparing.
Moreover, let us turn to your first term, when you were committed to giving VIA Rail a strong cole, a clear mandate. Mr. Speaker, they even tabled Bill C-97, which died on the Order Paper. How could they now make such an about-face and decide that VIA Rail should be closed down. You are not saying so in so many words, but that is the bottom line. You want to close VIA Rail down, but without preparing further answers.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to rise on this opposition motion criticizing the Government and raising the whole question of VIA Rail. It reminds me of an incident when I was first elected in 1979. A Budget came before us that had been prepared by Mr. Chretien in 1978. Of course, we were in Opposition at the time and opposed it. In 1979, because of the nature of the budget process 99.9 per cent of that Budget came back. We presented it as the Government and the Liberal Opposition opposed it even though it was a Liberal Budget from 1978.
What is even more horrible was that we were defeated in December of 1979. The Liberals came back with the Budget they had presented in 1978 and had opposed in 1979. They proposed it again in 1980 and we opposed it. That is what this debate reminds me of.


David Kilgour: It's called hypocrisy.


Blaine Allen Thacker: I think Canadians ought not to be fooled by the partisan politics that go on. The bottom line is that the Government really has to do certain things. I believe VIA is an example of that bottom line.
Let us start with the traffic. How many millions of passengers are there in automobile, bus, rail and air traffic? There are about 333.7 million. What is the percentage who travel by rail? It is 6.4 million for some 3 per cent. Yet for that 3 per cent in very restricted areas of the country we find a subsidy that has been growing really dramatically. In 1980, when the Liberals came back, the subsidy was some $423 million. Over the years it has progressed so that this year it is some $641.7 million. What that means is that about $7 billion has been spent in the last nine years on VIA. It has not worked because the number of passengers has gone from 7.6 million in 1980 to 6.4 million. The question is: Should Parliament allocate billions and billions of dollars that we would have to borrow from the public to remedy that situation? Is there a guarantee that if there was a better service that more people would use it? That is where the debate stands.
I am a bit doubtful myself simply because the nature of the country has changed. We build magnificent highways and then are amazed that people use them.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: They are all congested and you cannot get around on them any more.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Let me respond to the Hon. Member for Hamilton West (Mr. Keyes). I must say he is a fine ball player. If there was one more expansion in the Majors he would be in the Majors for sure. He is a fine ball-player, as the Pages found out. Perhaps the Hon. Member would rise at the end of my remarks. I think when he was making his speech he talked about a subsidy to Bombardier. I think that is what he was saying. I have information to the effect that Bombardier borrowed the money from the Export Development Corporation but at full commercial rates. I am sure that the company would not
June 9, 1989

want to have implications that it is being subsidized, nor would my friend want to leave that view.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Amtrak. You have it a little mixed up.


Blaine Allen Thacker: I want to read into the record a comment made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-South Centre (Mr. Axworthy) in which he set forth his position vis-a-vis VIA. It would not matter even if the Social Democrats were in power. Around the world they have cut railway services. If one goes to Australia, New Zealand and some of the Social Democratic Governments in Europe one will see that they have had to cut railways in certain places. It is not a question of ideology. This is what the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-South Centre had to say on July 17, 1981 as reported in Hansard:
In terms of VIA Rail, how many members on the other side of the House have preached for years about the need for an efficient use of resources-that is what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has put into place. The reason is because we have a Minister of Transport who is prepared to make tough decisions, not to back away, not to hide his head in the sand, not to get himself confused in a web of paranoia and fear, and simply allowing himself to be yelling into a rain barrel, but to make tough decisions, because that is what we were elected to do.
That is really where we find ourselves today. If Canadians will look objectively at the facts they will see that the people are not using the passenger rail service. That is the nature of the beast, just as in the early days they used waterways and then stage-coaches and then railways. Now it is cars and airplanes. Tomorrow it will be travel in space.
I ask Hon. Members to think of what Parliament could have done with that $7 billion. Think of what it could have done in terms of research and development instead of having been spent on 3 per cent of the travelling public. Think of what it would have done for education or for day care. There are so many places to which Parliament could have applied that money. What would $7 billion do in space? Space travel will ultimately do to airplanes what airplanes have done to the railways.
The world is changing. I frankly resent every dollar that we waste in the country subsidizing something where that subsidy has become unreasonable. It is the same as the subsidies to de Havilland became unreasonable. The minute it was privatized our technology started to go all around the world.
Supply


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Will the Hon. Member explain why the Conservative Party opposed the cut-backs proposed by Jean-Luc Pepin?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not exactly a point of order.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: The only thing pointed is his head.


Blaine Allen Thacker: I think the Hon. Member has the finest hair-do in the land. I have been attracted to him because of his hair-do ever since I have known him.


Don Boudria: Because you both have the same barber.


Blaine Allen Thacker: He does not have a pointed head, Mr. Speaker. He has one of the finest heads, one which I have admired for many years.
May I call it three o'clock?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: There is one minute left on questions and comments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There will be 30 seconds for the Hon. Member for Regina-Lumsden.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That will be 60 seconds, Mr. Speaker. We have just heard a litany of the same excuses provided by the Tories as the Liberals provided in 1981 and neither one of them has learned a damned thing since.


Some Hon. Members:: Time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In accordance with Standing Order 33(2)(b), it being 1.01 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 81(14), to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the Supply Proceedings now before the House.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.

June 9, 1989
Supply


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays clearly have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the recorded division stands deferred until six o'clock, Monday, June 12, 1989.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Although it is Friday, do you not call for the yeas and nays on both the motion and the amendment?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must proceed with the amendment first and, once a deferred division is taken Monday night, then we will deal with the main motion depending upon the vote.
The Member for Hamilton West on a point of order.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, in light of the question put to me by the Member, I am responding for the purposes of the "Blues" to clear up any misconception and to clear it up on the Member's records. Precisely what I said was that yesterday the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) stated that Amtrak is purchasing 100 cars from Bombardier in Quebec. The catch is that the purchase is, in part, being financed by the Export Development Corporation, a corporation of Her Majesty. Those are the precise words, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being three minutes after three o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3.03 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 12, 1989