1989-12-11

Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 84(1) I have the honour to lay upon the table copies of a notice of Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Act and related Acts together with supporting documents. I ask that pursuant to Standing Order 84(2) an order of the day be designated for consideration of said motion.


PETITIONS
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table in both official languages the government responses to several petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



COMMITTEES


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the
report of the legislative committee on Bill C-49, an Act to provide for the resumption of certain government services, without amendments.
I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to thank all committee members and the technical and administrative staff, who are to be commended for the excellent job they have done. More particularly, I would like to mention the dedication and kindness of our clerk, Mrs. Sirpaul. The Chair will recall that we sat yesterday, on Sunday, for over seven consecutive hours. I may say it was a very interesting and worthwhile experience.



HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE STATUS OF DISABLED


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons in both official languages. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests a comprehensive response to this report within 150 days.
I want to compliment the members of the committee for the very effective and non-partisan way they approached this topic which was very becoming to the nature of the topic, namely the court challenges program. This program, as members know, is extremely important to disadvantaged groups in the country and we were pleased to give it a very favourable report during the course of our study.
I should also remind members and colleagues in the House that the standing committee has unique terms of reference, inasmuch as we are mandated to propose, promote, monitor, and assess programs of government as well as those across the country with respect to disadvantaged people.
I commend this report to members of the House and the public because of the nature of our committee and the responsibilities we have.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]
mi

December 11, 1989
Routine proceedings


PETITIONS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition which rejects the recommendations made by the Task Force on Tax Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas. Your petitioners, who represent the isolated community of Lebel-sur-Quevillon in the Abitibi region, believe that although isolation is above all a psychological factor, it can be expressed in dollars and cents: no library, no movie theatres, no art galleries, no swimming pool, no museum of fine arts, no in-door bicycle track, no subway, and so forth.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Lebel-sur-Quevillon feel that the task force has failed to reflect the daily realities of the northern areas of Abitibi.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present petitions certified by the clerk of petitions signed by 3,595 persons who humbly pray that the Government of Canada abolish the proposed goods and services tax. They believe that this tax is inflationary, regressive, and will reduce the standard of living of Canadians generally.


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present a petition to the House of Commons pursuant to Standing Order 36. This petition, which contains 466 signatures is from people in the constituency of Oxford and is certified correct as to from and content. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to pass a law which recognizes the right to life for everyone from conception to natural death without exception, without discrimination, and to abolish the practice of abortion.
I submit this petition for the consideration of this House and ask that the clerk determine, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) the possibility of referring it to the government for consideration and response.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions at this time. One is signed by constituents of the riding of Davenport who humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.
I have another petition on the same subject, with the same message, from residents and voters from the city of Edmonton. I submit them for your consideration.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by several petitioners from southwestern Ontario. They call upon the Government of Canada not to make any cuts in VIA Rail service until a full investigation and report comes from the National Transportation Commission, which I believe is investigating transportation in the 1990s.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present to this House three petitions, certified correct by the clerk of petitions. They contain the signatures of constituents in the three Conservative held ridings of Hamilton-Wentworth, Lincoln and Burlington. The petitioners call upon this Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr Speaker, once again I rise in the House, pursuant to Standing Order 36, honoured to present a petition on behalf of the residents of the riding of Kent, who feel they are being raped by the present government. They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, I stand again in this House, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition on behalf of another 500 Londoners who ask this government to rescind its action with respect to VIA Rail. This brings the total number of petitioners from London to close to 10,000 who are asking for this government to change its mind on VIA.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. Janies):: Mr. Speaker, I too have the privilege and the honour of presenting a number of petitions carrying hundreds of signatures. Most of these petitions have to do with the GST, the goods and services tax. These petitions have been certified correct as to form and content, and they, in effect, say that this tax is regressive and that it is going to be a horrible burden on Canadian taxpayers. The petitioners ask all parliamentarians to reject this tax outright.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition which has to do with the abortion issue. This petition has been certified correct as to form and content. The petitioners are concerned about the pre-bom in this country, as all of us are, and certainly, in my opinion, the legislation currently before the House will not deal effectively with the abortion issue.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have some more signatures from people who are just absolutely devastated by this government's plan to introduce a goods and services tax. Irrespective of the level, whether it is a weasel level of-


Mr. Lewis:: Read the petition and forget the speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could I ask the hon. member just to summarize the prayer of the petition, please, and not make a speech. [DOT]
Mr Simmons: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I felt I was summarizing.


An Hon. Member:: It is a good speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It may be a good speech but it is not-


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I have some more signatures. And in summary, for the government House leader, I want to summarize for him, what this petition says. It says that people from Parkhill, Ontario, from London, Ontario-almost every street in London-London West, these people are sending me petitions from all over now, telling me, as the prayer says-I will just summarize and will not take the time to read it-that they are absolutely disgusted with this
Routine proceedings
goods and services tax, whether it is 7 per cent or 9 per cent. They are against it, absolutely against it.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and present this petition containing signatures collected on November 17 and November 18, from residents in my riding. It concerns the situation in El Salvador. There are over 100 signatures from residents of my area. They condemn the bombing of the civilian population by the government forces in El Salvador. They request that the Canadian Government halt all bilateral aid to the government of El Salvador immediately and to refuse further bilateral aid until it is demonstrated that all members of the military and security forces are acting in accordance with the Convention on Human Rights.
They also point out that Canada is a member of the Organization of American States now and should be very careful to pursue an independent diplomatic policy, leading to full protection of human rights as a peaceful resolution of conflict in El Salvador. The petitioners call for an independent investigation by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the OAS into the murder of the sue Jesuits in San Salvador and a full report on the protection of human rights in that country.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by the residents of Fort St. James in my riding, expressing concern about the proposed grief and suffering tax which will place a significant financial burden on the families of young athletes, thereby detering athletes from entering and continuing in the sport.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36.1 have a page of briefs from 50 people in Charlottetown-Bona-vista Bay. I will summarize it. They are sick and tired and fed up with the 31 additional taxes do not want the goods and services tax at 9 per cent, 7 per cent or any per cent. They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I stand in my place today pursuant to Standing Order 36, to submit a large number of petitions concerning VIA Rail. In total there are 1,274 signatures on these petitions from people of Kenora-Rainy River, who ask the government opposite to wake up and smell the

December 11, 1989
Routine proceedings
coffee and realize that VIA Rail is an integral part of our transportation system in northern Ontario. They humbly beseech the government on the other side to do something about it before January 15, in order that we may maintain this service that is so very important to the region.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition duly authorized under Standing Order 36, signed by members of the communities of Yorkton, Saltcoats, Neudorf, Melville and Domremy, in the province of Saskatchewan who decry the government's action of removing oats from the Canadian Wheat Board, particularly without consultation with the farm organizations in western Canada.
They point out that the marketing boards are farmers' organizations and are essential to the orderly marketing of commodities and certainly ought to be consulted whenever these kinds of changes are made. The petitioners beg and pray that Parliament not remove oats from the marketing boards and that it put oats and barley under the Canadian Wheat Board Act so that in future, farmers and their organizations will be consulted before the government takes this kind of action.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, question No. 167 will be answered today.


[Stage Direction]
2. Is it the intention of the government to pay the $60,000 set-up
cost and the $7,000 annual maintenance cost of bringing Radio-
Canada to every Yukoner on the same basis as CBC broadcasts in
English?
Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: 1.
The Government is very aware of the broadcasting situation for francophones outside of Quebec and in particular of the difficulties experienced by those in the Yukon.
The situation in the Yukon has been a matter of active collaboration among federal government departments. Discussions have taken place among representatives of the francophone associations of Northern Canada, the Minister of Communications and the Secretary of State.
It is not, however, the government's responsibility to establish and operate broadcasting distribution systems. Discussions are now being held between representatives of Radio-Canada and the Association of francophone residents of the Yukon. The objective is to define, in concrete terms, what measures can be taken and what resources are required in order to ensure the extension of French-language services to these areas.
2. The Secretary of State has already received a request from the Yukon's francophone association for financial support in the amount of $60,000 for capital expenditures.
The government hopes to provide an expedient response to that request once the different parties involved have come to an agreement on the best way to provide Radio-Canada's French services to francophone communities in Northern Canada and, specifically, in the Yukon.


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


The Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the hon. member from Churchill.


Ms. McLaughlin: 1. Has the government taken any action to resolve the problem of the inacessibility of Radio-Canada in northern Canada and, specifically, in the Yukon, as outlined to it by the Association des Franco-Yukonnais and, if so, what action?


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the parliamentary secretary has answered question No. 167. On the same date I put in question No. 169 which the government has yet to answer. It refers to various law firms which had business with the government, including


firms that involved senators or former senators. I wonder if the government could indicate if they are having any problems answering this question, or could tell us when that question will be answered?


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly certain on the member's specific question. I would be happy to check into it.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order or practice of the House, for the purposes of consideration and disposition of Bill C-49, An Act to provide for the resumption of certain government services:
1)	there shall be, following the adoption of this Order, one day for the report stage and one day for the third reading stage of the Bill;
2)	on each of the said days, at 15 minutes before the time normally provided at the conclusion of Government Orders, the Speaker shall interrupt any proceeding then under way and shall put forthwith, successively and without further amendment or debate, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the Bill; provided that if any such day be a Monday, Tuesday, Thursday or Friday, Private Members' Business shall commence, and continue for one hour, immediately following such proceedings; and
3)	following such hour of Private Members' Business or, on other days at the conclusion of proceedings on Bill C-49, as the case may be, the Speaker shall adjourn the House.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise, with not a great deal of pleasure to speak to this motion. The intent of the motion before the House is to try to speed up, without in any other way seriously inhibiting the present Standing Orders vis-a-vis Bill C-49.
Bill C-49, as the House will know, is back to work legislation. It is an effort to bring the two groups, that is the Coast Guard workers and the people who work in veterans' homes and hospitals, back to the table in an
Government Orders
effort to settle a dispute between management and workers which has been going on for some time.
I think everyone-except if one lives in a large city in central Ontario such as Ottawa-who has any experience with the weather and the transportation system in this country appreciates the dangers of the oceans at this time of year.
Furthermore I think it is fair to say that the farmers of western Canada who have grain on the ships that are presently in danger of being trapped in the seaway appreciate the great cost to the country that is going to ensue if those ships are trapped in the seaway over the winter. I understand there is a possibility of some 41 ships-which would be a record-that could be caught in the seaway as a result of the actions of the Liberal and NDP parties in stalling this legislation.
That may not bother members from Windsor, but if I were representing Windsor, a seaway port, I would be concerned about it. It does not bother anybody from London, they are landlocked. It does not bother anybody from Ottawa because they do not have emphathy for the people out on ships.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if they are not concerned about people out on the ships at sea and stalling the seaway over the winter, maybe I could ask the member from Ottawa and the member from Windsor to have some concern for our veterans and the people in veterans' hospitals. These services are presently being looked after by volunteers and if my hon. friend from Ottawa thinks that veterans should be inconvenienced that way and members to have it in their hearts to think about other people.
I see some members here who represent ridings with people at risk on the seas and I do not know how they are going to face their people back home if there are any accidents. I just ask them to think about that. Surely, if I, somebody from Orillia can understand that, the members who have constituents who are at sea might just think about that. They might just think about it the next time they go home.
In any event, I think I have their attention. Kingston is on the seaway. There is the odd big ship going by there but in case of an accident the crews can always swim to shore. That is what these people in Ottawa do not understand.
Why do you not talk to your members from Ottawa and tell them that it may be a big thrill to hold up legislation that puts people back to work if you live in

Government Orders
Ottawa, but if you live somewhere where there is risk at sea, one might have a better appreciation for it.
I did not want to speak for long but I got so incensed at the insensitivity of members opposite that I thought I would put those items on the record. There are some people to which you just cannot get through to.
For fear that there will be some suggestion that we are breaching the rules, I want to point out to the House that there were two ways of moving this legislation through the House; either by a time allocation motion or by this motion. Let us just draw the comparison between a time allocation motion and this motion for fear that after I leave the House there may be some unfortunate comparisons in which there is some variance between the truth and the comments of the members opposite.
One will know that time allocation under Standing Order 78(3) provides for one day at report stage and one day at third reading. This particular motion provides for one day at report stage and one day at third reading. Standing Order 78(3) calls for a two-hour debate. I am sure that by the time we debate this from 11.20 until one o'clock and then probably tomorrow with the opportunity to go until 1 a.m. on Wednesday morning that there will be far more than two hours debate. This will enable us to have met that particular problem in comparison with Section 78(3). The third point that I am sure my hon. friends will want to mention is that they will have the opportunity to speak for longer than 10 minutes. One knows that the debate on a time allocation motion is two hours with 10-minute speeches and the government is providing for much longer speeches by moving.
We think this is an appropriate way to deal with a very serious situation. I would implore my friends opposite to stop the political posturing which may gain some points in Ottawa but which is causing serious problems in other parts of the country where they are just trying to ship grain and look after veterans. I wonder at the reasoning behind the stalling of the opposition parties in not allowing this motion to be voted on immediately and for the report stage of the committee report which was tabled this morning and third reading to go ahead quickly.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, first of all, let us remind ourselves, it being Monday morning and the start of another week, what we are doing here. Bill C-49 would provide for the resumption of certain government services.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that this thing started late last week when the government decided to circumvent the normal process of collective bargaining. It used the sledgehammer approach on 3,600 workers, that is 1,300 hospital workers, and 2,300 ships crew people, some of the lowest paid workers in this country. On Thursday and Friday the government began the process of shutting down the collective bargaining process for these people, their right to strike in particular. It arranged to have a committee sitting yesterday, Sunday, in an effort to railroad this whole thing through as quickly as possible. Here we are again today with Bill C-49 and now with a motion to rush things up even more.
Listen, first of all, to the words of our good friend, the government House leader. If piety were for sale, he would be a billionaire. He tells us: "If you lived by the sea"-I say to him, I live by the sea. I will show it to him some time. He might be surprised by how big it is.
It is one thing as a government to try to use its parliamentary majority to bludgeon and hammer people. But on top of that it is an insult to intelligence to say this morning to those 2,300 men and women who earn their livelihoods in very dangerous situations patronizingly: "If you lived by the sea", I say to the minister, that is their first sin. They do live by the sea. The problem is they are not finding enough wages to keep body and soul together by the sea, thanks to this particular stingy government.
Now, the minister tells us as he continues his pious little lecture this morning that he is really helping veterans. I am touched. Where was he when this thing started three and a half weeks ago? Where was the minister's concern for veterans then? He tells us he is concerned about safety. Well, bully for him. If he were so concerned about safety, why was he not talking to the Minister of Transport and the President of the Treasury Board who a few weeks ago were telling us there was no consideration of safety. There was no problem whatever.

When is this honourable crowd going to learn that they cannot have their cake and eat it too? There is either a safety concern or there is not a safety concern, one or the other.
As I review my notes of the pious lecture from the government House leader, I recall that he told us this morning that he and the government are not inhibiting the process. No, no. He probably believes it is midnight outside right now, too. Not inhibiting the process!
For three and a half weeks, it plays with the negotiators on the union side of the table. The government toys with them. Now, day after day, the government brings in every parliamentary manoeuvre it can dream up to shut down the process altogether, trampling on the basic rights of a lot of people. First, the 3,600 people directly involved in this labour dispute. But it went further on Thursday and Friday and particularly this morning. Now it is in the process of trampling on the rights of every parliamentarian in this House because now the government wants to throw the rule book out the window.
Finally, if I may for a moment get away from the particular elements in this dispute, as important as they are, and look in a more global way at this whole issue is about incompetence. This really has to do with incompetence. We would not be here this morning discussing this particular issue if that crowd over there had been competent in their management of the collective bargaining process. That is the problem right there, absolute incompetence.
You only have to go back to late 1987 when Treasury Board missed a deadline for submitting to the Public Service board the list of personnel to be designated essential during the round of bargaining. It missed the deadline. That is basic incompetence, incompetence in the governing of the country, in the administering of the collective bargain agreements and the collective bargaining process. That is where it started, but it did not stop there.
If there is one thing you can say for this crowd, they are consistent about their incompetence. The Tories have used the same tactic here that they used on the free trade issue. When they could not win according to the rules, they threw the rules out of the window. They trampled on the election laws relating to financing of election, and that is another issue we will come back to in time. I just bring that forward now as example to show how this crowd stops at nothing. The law means nothing
Government Orders
to this crowd at all. If you cannot do it within the law, you flout the law.
So the Tories completely missed the deadline back in the fall of 1987 by failing to designate. They could not even do the thing legally and properly. Now they have brought their incompetence one more time to the floor of the House of Commons.
What are the rules we are supposed to live by here, Mr. Speaker? Let me remind you. The rule book we are going by now was written by a committee under the chairmanship of the Hon. James McGrath, now the Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland. But in that incarnation he was a member of this House and chairman of a committee to rewrite the rules. Before he was chairman of that committee in 1984, he was a member with me and some other people of another committee on reforming the rules. This committee on reforming the rules was chaired by a man who is now a senator, Senator Tom Lefebvre.
In 1982-83, Mr. McGrath, the Deputy Prime Minister, several others in this House and I, 18 of us altogether, did a very thorough review of the rule book, the so-called Standing Orders of this House. Some of the rules were implemented and then, of course, came the election of 1984, and a change of government. So it was appropriate, notwithstanding the fact that Senator Lefebvre had done a magnificent job, that the Tories appoint a government member as chairman of that committee. The succeeding committee was in effect the same committee by another name.
Many of the reforms that were contemplated and designed in 1982, 1983 and 1984 were then refined and recommended to the House, again post-1984, by the then member for St. John's East, Mr. McGrath.
Those rules were embraced to the credit of the Prime Minister and his majority in 1984-85. Those rules, recommended by Mr. McGrath, concocted, designed and crafted by two committees between 1982 and 1985, are the rules that we are using in this Chamber today to the credit of the Prime Minister.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, these rules in theory if allowed to work are a set of rules that makes for a pretty full debate and the representation of the concerns and interests of people from coast to coast. House of Commons rules or Standing Orders, as we call them, like everything else finally depend on goodwill, but particu-

Government Orders
larly do they depend and rely on the goodwill of the majority.
This morning, as you heard from the government House leader, goodwill goes out the window too when this crowd gets its back against the wall. So the government that bungled through incompetence its undertaking, its obligation to give notice of a list of essential service people back in October 1987, now brings its bungling here to the floor of the House of Commons.
I took a minute just now to outline to you the background of the rules under which we live and work here in this Chamber because it reinforces, does it not, the hypocrisy of the government House leader in coming here and saying that we want to suspend those rules one more time. We not only want to hoist or hijack the rules, we now want to accelerate the hijack. We want to speed her up now. We want to ram her through just as fast as we can.
What is the rush? I will tell you what the rush is. I was in Burgeo in my riding two weeks ago and the eight Coast Guard people who work in that community came to me with a letter signed by all eight of them, a letter reasonably worded asking the government to get on with the job of finding a workable, mutually satisfactory collective agreement for those coast guard people. In simple terms, negotiate.
That was the rush and that rush has been on for three and a half weeks. It was on for many months before that, before the people got to the point where they had to use the ultimate weapon in the collective bargaining process, to withdraw their services, to engage in a legal strike. Let there be no doubt about it. It has been a legal strike in every sense of the term.
The government House leader unwittingly this morning gives away the government's game. He talks about the Seaway. For those of you who do not know it, the Seaway is not off the coast near Burgeo. It is not anywhere off the coast of Newfoundland. Indeed, it is not even near Dartmouth where so many of the people are suffering because of this particular strike. That was their sin, that the Seaway did not go by their front doors.
Until such time as there was a bottleneck, an ice jam, a problem, a loss of money for the Seaway and until such time as big bucks were on the line, we heard no talk of safety. We saw ministers stand in this House and deny there was any safety consideration.
The minister this morning, in making his plea to the House, his pious little lecture to the House, his hypocritical nonsense to the House, says that there are some problems in the Seaway that are as a result of Liberal and NDP actions. These were his words. How warped! How warped can you be and still be loose? Because of Liberal and NDP actions, the government House leader says, we've got some problems in the Seaway.
I will tell him why we have problems in the Seaway. It is his incompetence, his stubbornness on this issue not to have settled this thing before it came to a strike three and a half weeks ago. That is why we have problems in the Seaway. If he thinks that is Liberal and NDP action, he should have a talk to himself in the mirror.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Who are you talking to? There's no one over there.


Roger Simmons: The NDP are back. Have you noticed? They are back this morning.
My friend from Churchill asked me who I am talking to. Let me tell him, because like his colleague in the committee yesterday, this whole issue is obviously passing him by. I will tell him who I am talking to. I am talking to the 3,600 people out there. I am talking to the 1,300 people out there who are on a picket line who would rather be in a hospital doing their thing.
I am talking to the 2,300 ships crews people out there, some of whom are on the picket line, but I will tell you where a lot of them are this morning. They are out keeping their commitment off the south coast of Newfoundland, looking for the Johnny and Sisters II, out of Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, with eight souls aboard. These people, when they went on strike said two things, in effect. "First, we are going to exercise our right to strike to make a point to the government, to our employer. But, number two, notwithstanding, if there is an emergency, we will be there."
They have been true to their word, whether it is off the Madeleine and Cape Sable area with the Capitaine Torres or the Johanna B, those two terrible tragedies over the weekend. On 11 or 12 occasions since this strike began,

the coast guard people have been there keeping their commitment.
Now, I hope that answers the question of the gentleman from Churchill.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I just asked if you were talking to government members. They're not there.


Roger Simmons: The member makes a good point that not as many of the government members are here as we would like to have this morning. However, we have with us from Calgary the minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. We know, of course, that when he is not busy with the post office and other matters, he is giving his undivided attention to the plight of those 3,600 people. I do not know what the member for Churchill is implying but I certainly have great faith in the minister from Calgary to take the message back to the government on this very important issue.
Now, what message is it we want the gentleman from Calgaiy to take back to the government? I should not neglect to say, of course, that not only is he here in the House-and I should say to the gentleman from Churchill that we are not allowed to say who is absent from the House-but the rules have been kind. We are allowed to say who is present in the House and I can see the Minister and I can see a member there, and a member there, and a member there, and I can see a member there, and a member there. I have seen neither one of those in a Liberal caucus, thank God, and I do not believe, judging by their right-wing speeches, that they would be caught in an NDP caucus either.


Mr. Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: Good morning to you, too. I thank the hon. gentleman from Lotbiniere.


Maurice Tremblay: You could at least say the name of my riding in French!


Roger Simmons: You know, Mr. Speaker, I believe the member feels his maiden speech coming on.
As I was saying, Sir, I want to acknowledge the presence here this morning to hear my speech on this
Government Orders
important issue of the minister and five Tory MPs. It is nice of you to drop in this morning, and I hope between the six of you, you will take to the government a message. The message is very simple. I have it written out here, word for word.
In case you are wondering what the problem is in this strike, it comes down to 50 cents an hour. Fifty cents an hour! Now, the government House leader talks about safety, and problems in the St. Lawrence, and big bad Liberals, and big bad NDPers who are causing all the problems. Fifty cents an hour is what is causing the problem.
If the government would go back in good faith and negotiate, this thing would be over in jig time. Would you take that message back to the government?
Would you also tell them that those people who you are characterizing as a bunch of tyrannical people somehow are actually people who are earning about $18,000 to $20,000 if you are talking about the ships crews people and less than that if you are talking about the hospital support service people. These are the people who are asking for some attention from this government.
Let me see what else the government House leader said this morning. I was making the point earlier that the Coast Guard people, on 13 separate occasions, have interrupted their strike to keep their first commitment to the people of Canada, their commitment that they would never let their salary or wage demands stand in the way of or interfere with the safety of or the lives of Canadians.
Some of their people in the last year paid very dearly for their commitment to safety, four of them in this year alone. Albeit they were only earning $18,000 or $20,000 a year, yet four of them have given their lives. Three did so off the Coast of Newfoundland, I say to my friend from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, trying to rescue a diver, as I recall. I look at him because he was speaking about this particular issue in the House at the time, a month and a half ago.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mid-October.


Roger Simmons: Mid-October. Three Coast Guard people trying to find a diver lost their lives. Of course, the diver was lost at that particular time too.

December 11, 1989
Government Orders
Back in January on the other coast, near Port Hardy, B.C., the crew of a tug boat was in some trouble. A Coast Guard individual was lost there. Four people, three on one coast, one on the other coast, lost in the pursuit of their duty, in trying to save the lives of others, in trying to assure the safety of other people.
I was away from the Chamber on Friday. I watched much of the debate on the rerun Friday night on television. When you sit there dispassionately, not being egged on by partisans, able to hear the pros and cons from both sides and distil it all for your understanding, you find yourself asking the question, what is this fuss all about?
This in some respects is a tempest in a teapot. Why? Why did the government allow it to come to this? Then you remember who is in charge. You remember what party has got a hold of the reins of power these days. You remember the litany of bludgeoning of rural people by government members in the last few years, particularly in the last year. You see what they are doing to rural Canada.
On every single front, whether it is double-speak or double-talk in terms of the ACOA program for Atlantic Canada, the butchering of the unemployment insurance regulations, the change in job creation for rural Canada, regional development programs and cutbacks in transfer moneys going to the less wealthy provinces, it all translates into one simple, blunt reality which is that the lot of anyone who lives in rural Canada is threatened and undermined by this government at every turn.
In the Coast Guard situation particularly, government members thought they had another winner; they thought they had another cudgel; they thought they had another baseball bat to beat the people of Dartmouth, Halifax, Nova Scotia generally and Newfoundland and northern B.C. over the heads with. They were going to teach rural Canada another lesson.
Just as they were right in the midst of their lesson, teaching rural Canadians who was in charge, something happened. The government overlooked one small detail, a little, tiny, minuscule detail called the St. Lawrence Seaway. The government overlooked the possibility that one day, the strike would begin to have an impact on the less rural parts of this country and that one day, the
fellows who financed the free trade debate might be hurt by this particular strike.
The government overlooked that until it started getting calls and until the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the various ministers over there began getting calls. "Brian, old buddy, remember, I underwrote your campaign? I helped get you back into office. You had bungled it badly in the middle of the election campaign and we, in the business community, had to lash out our millions to save your neck. Well, the jig is up; we are calling in the favour. Lower the boom! Use legislation. Change the rules of the House. Send the government House leader in to make pious little speeches if you have to. Do what you have to do. We are hurting down here on the St. Lawrence. That is my boat down there".
That kind of message, Mr. Speaker, gets through to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister says to the President of the Treasury Board: "Remember that fine speech you made last week about no problems with safety? Get up now and make the opposite speech". Being the dutiful Tory he is, he got up and made the opposite speech. We heard him last week lament about safety, he, the man who assured this House three weeks before, that safety was not an issue.
One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11. Mr. Speaker, there are 11 Tories in the House.


Maurice Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere, (Mr. Tremblay) on a point of order.


Maurice Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I realize that here in the House we have certain privileges, including the right to say what we think. However, I think a right that can so easily be abused should be exercised veiy carefully. When someone takes advantage of this august assembly to make nasty insinuations about the presence or absence of certain members, about whether or not they are listening to the more or less interesting speeches being made by certain members, and when someone is constantly harping on this, it boils down to a rude display of political partisanship before this assembly, especially at a time when we are considering whether certain people have the right to strike or whether they should be forced to go back to work, considering the fact
December 11, 1989

that the health of Canadians is at risk. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I may remind the Hon. Member that he has no business commenting on how hon. members get along in the House and whether they are or are not in the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Just one comment on the point of order by the hon. member. I understand why he raised the point of order but as far as the Chair is concerned the comments made by the member for Burin-St. George's are in order. What would be out of order would be to mention either the absence or the presence of a specific member, which the member for Burin-St. George's, with the experience that he has, has not done. The member is in order and I give him the floor.


Roger Simmons: I thank the member for Lotbiniere. He is one of the 11 people whose presence I had acknowledged. I was about to pay him a compliment. I was about to say that he is one of 11 people who is giving my words of wisdom some thought. If the rules did not prevent me from saying so, I would have reported that I assume that somebody has just gone to take a message to the government.


Mr. Andre:: You can clear a room quicker than anyone I know, that's for sure.


Roger Simmons: The minister can fill certain rooms pretty fast too, as long as he gives out FBDB grants to the right place.
There is one other issue I want to address briefly. Because so many of my other colleagues want to speak I intend to sit down very quickly. My good friend from Hillsborough, Prince Edward Island, is going to have a few words and then other speakers will want to have a few words. You see, Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we convey to the government the strength of feeling that is out there.
I want to close on a note that the government House leader struck when he was giving us that pious lecture a few minutes ago. He talked about empathy. What I want to know is who loaned him the dictionary. He has discovered empathy, has he? We who live by the sea, to use his words, who represent those Coast Guard people have been empathizing, have been sharing the pain of
Government Orders
those people for some time, long before the strike began, long before he discovered there was such a thing as coast guard workers.
Empathy-if this government understood the word "empathy", there would be no strike today. If this government understood empathy, it would not be here trying to railroad legislation through the House, it would not be having a legislative committee sit on a Sunday afternoon. It would not be here now hijacking the rules of the House, the rules that the government itself brought in four short years ago.
I say to the minister, if he wants to talk empathy, let him leave this place and have a quiet chat with his buddy, the President of the Treasury Board, and tell him he can put his money where his mouth is when it comes to empathy simply by finding 50 measly cents an hour per employee. That is not 50 cents on top of a million, that is 50 cents on top of 14,000,15,000, 16,000,17,000 or 18,000 bucks a year. These people are not earning enough to keep body and soul together now.
If the minister wants to practice a bit of empathy, let him take a few of the shekels which he is going to drag out of the people with the goods and services tax and pay it to those 3,600 people. Instruct the people on the government side of the bargaining table to get serious. Give them the wherewithal and give them the instruction to settle this thing now. In doing it, remember that the people of Canada will be grateful to you, that you are really just saying thank you to the men and women who have come to the aid of people in distress as recently as this weekend.
If there was ever an occasion where the rug of argument was pulled right out from under the government, it was this weekend when they were in the House talking about safety, saying: "If we don't get this strike over, lives are going to be at stake", and so on and so forth. Right in the midst of that we had no fewer than three separate tragic occurrences, two off Nova Scotia and one off Newfoundland, with a total loss of life of 47 people. The spokesman from the Ministry of Transport was on television Friday night. I saw his face and I heard his words. When he was asked if the strike had in any way impeded or interfered with the response time he said "No". Indeed he said the response time was better than average.

December 11, 1989
Government Orders
One of the government's own spokesmen is telling us that although there is a strike on, although these people are demoralized because their employers are treating them as adversaries, as enemies. That is an issue that some of our members will talk about today. They will speak of the morale of those people who have to go to the high Arctic and work for months on end for a pittance, of the tension of living in close quarters for months on end with the same few people. The least they could ask for is a fair wage. The least they could ask is not to be kicked in the teeth by their government and by their employer.
But I digress. The point I was making for the minister is that on Friday night a spokesman for the Department of Transport spoke on national television about the response time to those emergencies, those three terrible tragedies this weekend; the Johanna B, the Capitaine Torres off Nova Scotia and the one south of Cape Race, Newfoundland, the Johnny and Sisters II. In the case of those three tragedies the spokesman for the Ministry of Transport says that notwithstanding the strike, because the question was put to him in that context, the response time to all three of those emergencies was better than average.
I urge the House to resist the government's insatiable appetite for throwing out the rules. Let me say it differently. I urge the House not to become party to the shameful incompetence of this government, an incompetence which in this case started with failing to designate the essential workers and which has now been brought to the floor of the House with the government trying, first of all, to hijack the rules and then speed up that hijacking process.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to debate and speak against this motion which the government has introduced. I think it is interesting that in the process that has been involved in these negotiations and in this legislation the government is not only the employer but is using its power, through the legislation, to achieve what it could not achieve at the bargaining table.
This is triply repugnant because it goes against a ruling of the International Labour Organization which found this government in contempt of the convention that is signed by Canada with regard to free collective bargaining.
Let me make reference to that ruling. It is with regard to the 1987 Postal Services Continuation Act, introduced by the government of that time. It is important to realize that that legislation is basically the same as the legislation we have in front of us at this time. In other words, with the legislation forced through Parliament by the government in 1987 which was found in violation of Article 3 of Convention No. 87, the government learned nothing.
Let me read from the finding of the committee. I will not read it all because I only have 20 minutes to cover the whole topic. The committee said that under the circumstances, the legislation was "not in conformity with the principles of freedom of association".
The committee draws to the Government's attention that section 11(1) of the Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987, constituted an interference in the free functioning of union organizations, and violated the right freely to elect representatives, guaranteed to the workers by Article 3 of Convention No. 87.
The committee invites the Government to keep all these considerations in mind in the future.
That was what the International Labour Organization, of which Canada is part, on which Canada has served very well over a number of years, said about legislation passed by this House in 1987. Why would this same government come back two years later and introduce legislation which has already been found in violation of an international treaty? Remember that Canada freely signed the convention, freely signed the International Labour Organization convention. It is expected that when our nation puts its signature to a convention, we should live up to that convention. We did not and the government has obviously not learned a lesson. It is going to continue to violate the International Labour Organization.
I should point out to those members of the government and others who may not understand that this is not an organization just of unions, the International Labour Organization is composed of unions, all the governments of the countries affected, including Canada, and the employers associations. We were not found in violation strictly by a group of unions. We were found in violation by nations throughout the world, by employers throughout the world, and by unions throughout the world. We had a fair tribunal, we were found guilty and here the

government comes back again with essentially the same legislation.
The motion in front of us today will restrict debate on report stage to basically Wednesday afternoon. In other words, after quickly rushing this legislation through committee on a Sunday afternoon, where there was not really opportunity to do any clause-by-clause study, where amendments were really not presented, this House is going to have to go through the amendments which were proposed and were presented to the government ahead of time and deal with them in approximately two and a half hours on a Wednesday afternoon. That is assuming there are no procedural wrangles or the government does not have some other trick up its sleeve to even further limit debate at that time. Two and a half hours to consider amendments at report stage.
As the former labour critic of our caucus, I know that there have been amendments made on back to work legislation in the past. I know that at the present time there are discussions going on to see if this bill can be improved. However, all desire by the government to improve the legislation is taken away if this motion passes. The government members know they can get the legislation through report stage in two and a half hours on a Wednesday afternoon and then they can all go off to their Christmas party.
I think that is one of the reasons for the legislation. Why is it that they are quite willing to speak all night on Tuesday on procedural wrangles, but when it comes to the legislation itself we must have those bells ringing by a quarter to six and we must start voting at six o'clock, just because the Conservatives want to go off to their Christmas party. That is their idea of essential services.
I said that this is an abuse of Parliament. We have in the past, and there are members on the government side who know this, amended back to work legislation. I have said that already. But restricting our debate to two and one-half hours on a Wednesday afternoon takes away any initiative by the government to be reasonable in improving this legislation.
That is especially important to understand because the government is the employer. The employer has written this legislation. It is obviously a concern, not only of the workers but of anybody who believes in fairness, that the employer should write the legislation and then force it through the House, force it through committee, force it through report stage and force it through a quick final
Government Orders
reading without anyone having the ability to effectively amend that legislation.
When the railway workers were ordered back to work the legislation was amended. When the postal workers were sent back to work there were improvements made. This time the government is tiying to thwart that possibility. If you are someone who is being ordered back to work, if you are someone who is losing your union privileges, if you are someone who is going to be subjected to severe fines as a result of this legislation, you cannot feel that you have been treated fairly when the government uses its majority and uses a jackboot approach to the rules of this House to prevent adequate study at each and every stage of this legislation.
The government has said that this legislation must pass because it affects essential services. The government failed, we all know it failed, to designate those employees it deemed to be essential within the time limits required by its own legislation.
If the government thought that these services were essential, why did it not live up to the requirements of its own legislation? Why did it not designate those employees doing essential services as is required by law? My colleague, another former labour critic, says the government is incompetent. That is true. But why, as a result of its own incompetence, would it try to rush the legislation through this House negating all sense of fairness, all sense of decorum, all sense of the rules and procedures of this House and against an international labour organization ruling?
The government House leader got up and said: "Aren't you concerned about safety?". Of course we are concerned about safety. "Aren't you concerned about the veterans?". Of course we are concerned about the veterans, but let me speak on a personal level for a few minutes. Both of my parents worked in the Deer Lodge Hospital which was a veterans' hospital. I visited that hospital a number of times when I was growing up and I saw the plight of the veterans, but I also saw the way the workers were treated by the government. There were low wages in the 1960s and there are low wages today.
If the government is so concerned about the plight of veterans and the way they are treated, then why does it pay the people who work in those hospitals and veterans' homes such low salaries? Why has the government failed, in every way, shape and form, to pay salaries that are equal to those paid to people who work in hospitals run by the provinces or by the municipalities? Why has

December 11, 1989
Government Orders
the government kept the salaries so low for those workers?
A human rights tribunal has already ruled that the government has failed to meet the requirements of pay equity and the government has dragged its heels on that issue. We know that workers in the coast guard on the east coast are being paid less than those in the western half of this country. Again, the government has dragged its heels. When it comes to pay equity, when it comes to regional equity, this government has failed to take the leadership and has failed to deal with these problems in negotiations.
If we allow this government to introduce this motion and pass it through the House without making any attempts to amend the legislation, then this House is being unfair to the employees of the Government of Canada. This House will fail in its requirements to make sure that when legislation passes both sides in an industrial dispute are treated fairly. It is always offensive when one side, in this case obviously the employer, writes the legislation ordering people back to work. It is unfair when the fines in the legislation are so high. It is unfair that people lose their rights as a result of this legislation.
It is unfair for us in Parliament to speed this legislation through because the government finds it inconvenient to do otherwise as Christmas approaches, because the government members want to go to a Christmas party on Wednesday evening, because the government itself failed to live up to its obligations with regard to designating essential employees and because the government really has no understanding of or support for the concept of pay equity or regional development and regional equality. How can we, as parliamentarians, allow them to do this?
Unless there are amendments to this legislation making it fairer, we have no choice but to oppose it vigorously at all stages.


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this motion which is another method of limiting debate on what, as some members opposite have stated here this morning, is a very, very serious issue. A very serious issue it is. This back to work legislation
introduced last week will undermine Canadian values and traditions.
We are dealing with an issue that would allow the government to destroy the collective bargaining process. Ironically, it is this government's own ineptitude which resulted in the situation at hand. I am referring to Bill C-49, an act to provide for the resumption of certain government services. Nicely worded so that Canadians do not read between the lines. They will not be certain just what has been accomplished by this legislation.
Let us be clear about just what is going on. The ships' crews group and hospital services group will be forced to abandon their legal strikes. Both groups have attempted to bargain in good faith with the government since the expiration of their collective agreements. Both groups have merely asked for the right to earn a living, which is hardly an excessive demand. Treasury Board has not attempted to resolve these issues in any way, shape or form. It has done nothing more than use stonewalling tactics from the very beginning.
The introduction of this legislation is basically unjust. There is no need for this legislation and the government should not interfere in any way with the free collective bargaining process. This process has been established in Canada for many years. Inherent in the collective bargaining process is the right to strike although, as we who have been in the collective bargaining business for some years all know, not many people want to strike here or anywhere else.
These unions are exercising their right to strike only to have the government react with strong arm techniques. Not only is this a demonstration of a lack of concern and of caring on the part of government, it also provides us with yet another example of the government's incompetence. The list of illogical and incompetent actions taken by this government continues to grow. I need not give examples because it would take far longer to cite them than the time allotted to me today to speak.
When the collective agreement for the ships' crews group expired in December 1987 the union served notice to Treasury Board. Treasury Board had 20 days after the expiration of the agreement to serve notice designating the group. It let the period expire without designating any of the services as essential. When it later tried to designate the group the Public Service Alliance appealed this move to the Federal Court and won, and rightly so. The Public Service Staff Relations Board supported the position of the Alliance so Treasury Board appealed to



the Federal Court and the original decision was upheld. This went on until September of this year and because of this the collective bargaining process was continually delayed.
If Treasury Board had done the job properly the unions would not have been in a position to strike. It did not and now the government has tabled this legislation and passed it on to a committee, which legislation is intended to force these people back to work.
The scenario I have just described reeks of incompetence on the part of this government. When one asks the government why it is introducing back to work legislation, the answer now is "for safety reasons". As has been stated in this House many times in the last two or three days, safety is not an issue here, as was witnessed this past weekend.
Both groups have been conducting reasonable strikes. In the case of the ships' crews, emergency search and rescue vessels have been on standby across the country and the crews have responded on numerous occasions to life-threatening and disastrous situations. While the workers have exercised their legal right to strike, they have continued to provide emergency search and rescue services to all Canadians.
The same can be said for the hospital service workers presently on strike. The Public Service Alliance has offered to provide essential services but the government contends that the level of services offered are inadequate.
A recent article in a local newspaper suggests that the residents of veterans' homes support the position of hospital workers. One resident is reported as saying, and I quote: "We have very few residents who show resentment. We support the strikers because they are really extraordinary people who have given us the best of treatment".
Where are the serious violations of safety that this government is suggesting? In the case of the hospital workers Armed Forces personnel are filling the gap and at the homes temporary nursing assistants and volunteers are providing services. These hospital workers make between $18,000 and $22,000 per year. That is not very much money to survive on in this day and age. These
Government Orders
workers did not seek out a strike but they were given no choice. In the words of PSAC Vice-President Jim MacE-wen, and I quote: "We didn't seek this strike, but we have an employer who stonewalled us during two years of negotiations, has refused to comply with the findings of the Canadian Human Rights Commission with respect to pay equity. They have so exasperated the patience and goodwill of our members that they see no alternative but to take this type of action".
The reference to the Human Rights Commission decision on pay equity refers to a decision to award those workers $28 million in pay equity settlements. This means that the 1,200 hospital workers are owed $3,000 each. This decision was handed down in July 1987. Twenty months later they were still waiting for their money. Three thousand dollars is a lot of money to these workers. It is the difference between having food on the table or not.
Federal hospital service workers did not go on strike until November 29. A week later the government refused to allow it. The government fails to realize that these workers are undervalued and underpaid. The Human Rights Commission tribunal has called upon the government to compensate these workers for past discrimination, to re-evaluate all positions and to revise the hospital services classification standard to parallel the government services group.
The ships' crews workers legally went on strike on November 13. The major issues, as have been talked about here daily, are wages, hours of work, a sea duty allowance and wage parity between east and west coast workers. Last week in this House I called upon the minister responsible to finalize the wage parity issue and to negotiate the remaining issues. I have been informed that a carrot was dangled before the union, that being drop the other issues and you will get wage parity. The minister denied that such a condition exists. Either he is mistaken or he has been misinformed by his own people because Treasury Board officials have stated that that conditional offer was put on the table.
Last week I also indicated that this strike, in my opinion, could be settled quickly, and it must be. The Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway economy alone is losing over $2 million a day and there is only

December 11, 1989
Government Orders
between $5 million and $6 million in dispute between adequate services, but the hospital service workers Treasury Board and the union.	deserve to earn an adequate living.
The minister keeps saying that he is willing to negotiate, and negotiate they did. I say to him, stop talking about it and do it. We can end this strike today.
Maybe that is the real reason behind this legislation. Perhaps this is the minister's idea of negotiating. The true motivation has not been to send the workers back because of safety reasons, but to force them back and to break the unions, thereby setting into motion the gradual elimination of the collective bargaining process in Canada, period.
Once again I must remind the House that these groups are in a legal position to strike. It is their right. Now, through this proposed legislation before us, the government intends to fine these underpaid-and I stress underpaid-workers. The fines are quite large-$500 to $1,000 a day for a worker, $10,000 to $50,000 a day for an individual who is a representative of the bargaining agent, and $50,000 to $100,000 a day for the bargaining agent. Those are awfully high penalties for people making in the vicinity of $20,000 a year.
Let us look briefly at what else the legislation does. It orders all ships crews and hospital service workers back to work immediately. It sets in place binding conciliation, that is, both sides have to accept an imposed settlement. The legislation names two chairpersons to the two boards. Normally the process is for each party to name its members for the board and then the members agree to a chairperson. I say that there is no need to do this at all-just settle the strike.
The government must admit that it has bungled the entire process. But why does the government not lick its wounds, return to the table to settle this mess?
I am acutely aware that there are problems out there and that businesses are being affected by the strike. I have received two faxes over the weekend from businesses in the Great Lakes area. I talked to people in Prince Edward Island. There are problems with the shipment of potatoes. The ships are going to be stuck in the harbours. I can appreciate the problems these people are having, because they have to earn a living. The whole economy of the country is suffering. The residents of veterans' hospitals and homes deserve to receive full and
In order to restore rights to everyone concerned I call upon this government to do the right thing. Negotiate today in good faith. Do not force these men and women to accept an unfair settlement.
The government gave no indication, back when it was negotiating, that it was going to introduce legislation, because it has refused to act in good faith. Sadly, that is typical of everything that this government has done in the past five years.
We must remember that these legal strikes have in no way affected the lives or the safety of the Canadian people. The government is trying to destroy the very existence of collective bargaining in this country, and that is the bottom line.
Because of this I oppose this legislation. We on this side of the House implore the government to settle the strikes fairly and equitably. The government has no right to force these Canadians back to work. That tactic may, more than anything else, affect the quality of service that these groups provide. When you take away a person's legal right to self-expression, you deny them their self-worth and self-dignity. That, Mr. Speaker, will benefit no one.


Ron Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I think it is worth while right at the beginning to remind the government and members of the House that the day closure was first introduced on this piece of legislation was the forty-first anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights. There were, I thought, rather eloquent speeches on behalf of all three parties concerning this memorable occasion. But, at the same time, we have to be very aware of how fragile human rights are.
It is not sufficient to simply stand up in the House and acknowledge the forty-first anniversary of this, to say how wonderful the United Nations is and how wonderful human rights are unless we put some kind of action behind those words. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that the action of the government in bringing in closure the first time in this particular round of the debate on this proposed legislation really does show its commitment, or lack thereof, to the whole concept of human rights. That is further exemplified as we go through the history of the dispute between the government, the employer, and some of its employees. These are em-

ployees who, I would point out, are among the most poorly paid in the Canadian civil service.
The government's commitment to human rights and equality are stated on a lot of different occasions. In some cases it has been forced to live up to what ought to be its commitment. Here is an example of where that is the case.
There was a complaint by the Public Service employees in 1981 which actually precedes the life of this government and goes into the life of a previous government. This was a complaint brought by Canadian civil servants against the government wherein one of the groups which we are involved with in this legislation pointed out that they were improperly paid in relation to other groups of civil servants, that is, paid less. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decided that that was so. I quote the tribunal's decision, "The parties are agreed that the hospital services (HS group)," which is one of the groups we are dealing with in this legislation, "is predominately female and has received less wages than the general services group, a predominately a male group performing the same work of at least equal value."
The government has fought that decision all through the piece, rather than doing the proper thing. I think it is fair to point out that this decision predates the present government, but that does not excuse it for not having taken immediate action when it did come to power.
Nonetheless, during election campaigns the Prime Minister himself has reiterated time and time again-I am not going to read what he said during election campaigns-that this government is unequivocally committed to affirmative action. He said that it is unequivocally committed to making sure that women receive equal pay for work of equal value. In fact he stated on more than one occasion that there was money actually being set aside in order to accommodate the equalization of pay for work of equal value.
This concept on the part of the Prime Minister goes back as far as the 1984 election when I think the nation as a whole was really quite taken up with what appeared to be the sincerity of that man when he spoke to the
Government Orders
National Action Committee on the Status of Women and other groups during the debates in that election campaign. Subsequently, very little has happened. The fact that the hospital services group in this particular instance did not receive the kind of amelioration for the problem which they faced is evidence that that did not occur. Not only did it not occur between 1984 and 1988, nothing of any particular substance has occurred since the 1988 election.
When we compare the forty-first anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights and the government's apparent commitment to it and its actions, we can only conclude that there certainly is a sense that the government has not lived up to its commitments. Of course that is really not too surprising considering some of its other actions since it came to power even as far back as 1984.
The problems did not start there. When we look at the problems that the ships crews are having, as well as the problems the hospital groups are having, and compare that to the time when there was another strike in progress a month or two ago with the parole officers and another group of employees in the federal government, we see that these three groups make up the total of those who have gone on strike in the civil service within the last short period of time.
I do not suppose it would be a surprise to anyone if I were to point out that if the government had had its way and followed its usual course of action, then these three groups of people literally would not have been able to strike. Since the inception of the ability of the Public service to go on strike these three groups of employees, along with many others, have not been able to go on strike. That is because each year as contract time comes up, the government designates a certain number of people within particular groups whom it considers to be performing essential services, therefore precluding them from being able to go on strike. This year, that did not occur.
The course of action on which the government proceeded as a result of its having overlooked designating

Government Orders
these people as essential certainly reflects incompetence. It goes back again to its lack of commitment to the very basic human rights which were spoken of so eloquently when this legislation was first introduced. Once the government realized it had made a mistake, once it realized there was a possibility that not only these three groups, but many, many others within the civil service action that it conceived possible to prevent these people from going on strike anyway. Specifically, it went to the courts. It made a mistake, and then went to the courts to try to get the courts to overturn the fact that it had made a mistake. It went to the courts to try and get the decision that these people would be able to go on strike overturned. It went to the courts not once but twice.
I suspect it would have gone to the Supreme Court as well had it not been for the fact that by the time the Supreme Court decision would have been rendered the contract would have long since expired. The government had other fish to fry, other ways of getting these people back to work, even though there was a possibility they may go on strike.
I think it is important to point out, as I said before, that many, many more people within the Public Service were able to go on strike other than those in these three groups. In spite of the fact that many other civil servants had the right to go on strike, because of the government's mistake only those three groups did go on strike. I refer to the parole officers, ships crews and the hospital services people who did go on strike, exercising their democratic right for the first time since 1967, when it first became possible for civil servants to be unionized at all, and ostensibly at least to have the right to strike.
There are some very good reasons for these people to go on strike when for the first time they had the opportunity to do so. It in no way signifies that they are strike-happy. What it does signify is that they had no other alternative. Through all the preceding years of their employment with the government they had been prevented from going on strike. As I pointed out before, they had become the most poorly paid within the civil service. I was on the picket line the other day with them and there were different ones pointing out to me the problems they were having. One woman was a single parent with two children earning $16,000 a year.
I do not think there is a community within Canada where $16,000 with one child constitutes anything above the poverty level. That is an atrociously low amount of money for a person to make who is trying to support a family in any kind of meaningful style.
Another woman, a widow with four children, pointed out to me that she was earning $20,000 a year. I guarantee that at those levels of earning, unless one lives in a rural area that is certainly below the poverty level.
It is shameful that the Canadian government, and I am sure that the Canadian people, would find it impossible to support a situation where the Canadian public are condoning-and I guess that is the only way to describe it-employees of the government making so little money and living in such dire straits.
We have a situation where out of desperation these three groups did exercise their democratic rights. They have gone on strike in order to try, as is the common practice in such a situation, to improve their condition in life.
The arguments put forth by the government concerning the need for this back to work legislation certainly begs a question. We have been through one day of debate. We have been through the legislative committee process on this issue. Nowhere has the government been able to point out that there is any threat to the livelihoods of Canadians, or any threats to the lives of Canadians. There was reference made earlier to a decision of the International Labour Organization. I do not intend to go into a description of how the ILO is constituted, that has already been very well pointed out.
The decision of the committee of the ILO states in part, "Nevertheless, unfortunate as these consequences are, they cannot justify an abridgement of the fundamental rights guaranteed by conventions number 87 and 98, unless they reach the point where they affect the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population." In no case has this been evidenced. The Coast Guard workers, the ships crews group, as admitted to by the government, have exemplified the greatest of responsibility in this situation. Before they went on strike they offered to supply personnel wherever it was necessary in order to protect the safety of the Canadian public on our national waterways. The government admits that in no way has there been any threat whatsoever as a result of the strike.
December 11, 1989

In the case of the hospital group, the hospital services group offered to supply services in their places of work. They offered to provide 8 per cent of the people who would ordinarily do the work. The government said that was not satisfactory. It summarily dismissed the whole situation as if there were no other alternatives which may not have been any more complicated than asking the hospital services group, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, whether or not the 8 per cent was the absolute maximum which they would supply. That was never done. There was a great deal of evidence in the public domain to show that the government was very insincere in its approach to the hospital services workers. In addition, it has been adamant in trying to prevent them from going on strike at all, in spite of the fact that it has been so demonstrably uncaring with regard to its obligations under the decision of the Human Rights Commission.
There have been references made to the different people affected by this strike. There is a veterans home in Saskatoon. Long before these people were able to go on strike legally, the government had taken action to remove people from the home and to put them into different medical facilities within the city of Saskatoon. That was much to the dismay, I would point out, of the families of the people involved. These hospital services workers are a part of the families of these veterans who are in our home. In many cases they are the only families that some of these veterans have, since their own families live very far away. They have become part of the daily lives of these people. Even where the family members do not live great distances away the families themselves have said, "Please do not move these people". It is going to be far more disturbing to them to have them moved. The government could have found a way to accommodate the union's offer to provide the essential services that these people would have required without having disturbed them unduly.
The issue of pay equity with the hospital services workers are something which the government is going to have to address sooner or later. The decree is there. If the government wants to settle this strike quickly, then it can start by showing good intentions by simply saying "Look, we do not have to wait for the long process of the Human Rights Commission Tribunal to be implem-
Govemment Orders
ented." It could just go ahead and do it as it is. I cannot understand why the government has not done that.
These people will never get another chance to strike. If the government is going to designate workers as being essential then I challenge it to pay them as they are as valuable and as essential to society as the government now claims. That has not been the case in the past. If the government is going to designate them, then pay them.


Mr. MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, I have some comments about the speech that was just given by my colleague from Saskatoon. The comments that he made deal with a very important principle in this country. It is a principle of paying people what they are worth. It is a principle that this government has absolutely steadfastly refused to adhere to.
We heard a lot of rhetoric in this House over the last number of weeks as this issue came before us. I think my hon. colleague would agree that there are a lot of individuals out there who are not exactly sure what the main issues are that have precipitated the strike and this veiy unusual motion, which I think has only been introduced twice before in this place. Basically, it is an advance closure motion. Not only will this government not negotiate in good faith with the unions and adhere to the collective bargaining principles, it is trying to override the established principles and the standing orders of this place by using strange motions in the House.
What I want to get to is the issue of pay. I think many Canadians out there are saying, "Well, we have these two groups of public servants who are on strike and causing some dislocation in the economy". It is in the economy that the dislocation is taking place-the St. Lawrence Seaway economy. We have heard everybody from all sides of this House say that they are concerned about that, and we are concerned about it.
But let us not blame those employees who have exercised their right to strike for just pay for the work that they do. The individuals that I have talked to who work with the ships crews get paid on average about $20,000 a year-a wonderful salary. People who work in the retail sector, restaurant sector, transportation sector and private sector in the marine industries get paid much more than that. But for some reason this government is hell bent on painting these employees as somehow trying

December 11, 1989
to gouge the public purse, somehow trying to pick the pockets of the taxpayers because of their greed.
I just want to put that on the record. I think my hon. friend will agree, since he has been following this issue as intently as members from my party have been doing. These individuals are getting $20,000 a year. What do they do? They come and say to the government, "We want a couple of things. First of all, we want to negotiate in good faith". They did that for over two years. They did not go on strike the first day that they could have, they negotiated for two years. Did they ask for a 50 per cent increase? No. Perhaps they should have. If they had known they were going to get the treatment that they are getting now in this place by this government, they should have asked for 100 per cent. They would be well worth 100 per cent. But that is not what they did. They came in with a reasonable request.
First, they said, "Don't discriminate against us for the job that we do based on where we live. Get rid of that regional rate of pay". That is exactly what the union asked on behalf of its membership.
The second thing that they asked was that they get paid a shift differential, that they get paid for sea duty. It works out to $177 per month. They asked for a couple of other very small fringe benefits. The over-all cost of the package was not the 17 per cent that the government and the President of the Treasury Board continue to push out, the actual increase was closer to 6 per cent. That is terribly misleading to the Canadian public and a great disservice to those men and women who work as ships crews.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague to make some comment on the government's misleading figures, about this terrible group of ships crews who are looking for 17 per cent, when in actual fact we both know that it is 6 per cent. I would like him to comment on that.


Ron Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the questions. I would point out that that is not the only area in which misleading statements have been made by the government.
There is one very misleading statement that came out as a result of questions in the House of Commons the other day when the President of the Treasury Board implied that the President of the Professional Institute
of the Public Service of Canada was condoning the introduction of back to work legislation.
I have a letter which I am not going to quote, but I would certainly like to put on the record that Iris Craig, president of that organization, wrote to the President of the Treasury Board and stated in no uncertain terms that she was in no way in favour of the back to work legislation and was condemnatory of the government's actions, as the rest of us are.
On the matter of rates of pay, it is very hard to understand why the government would distort what is actually happening. It is true that if these agreements are implemented, the rates will be a little bit higher than the general percentage of settlement within the rest of the public service. But it is not the rest of the public service that is complaining about this, it is the government itself. The basic principle is that this kind of settlement has to be put in place in order for these people to receive the kind of pay that they ought to get.
It is certainly not 14 per cent every year of the contract. For the government to imply that that is the case is so erroneous as to be beyond description. It is a reasonable 5 per cent, 4.8 and 4.6, something like that, over what will probably be, in the end, 42 months. That is certainly what is being negotiated now. I thank my colleague for raising that and the opportunity to respond to it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 1 p.m., I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
The House took recess at 1.02 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words about the sailors lost at sea in Atlantic Canada the last few days, some of whom were Nova Scotia fishermen.

We all know how cold a Canadian winter can be, but just imagine how cold it is on the deck of a 50-foot fishing boat in seas with 30-foot waves in the middle of December. Imagine trying to work your hands on frozen lines and nets while being sprayed with freezing water. Imagine seeing a huge wave coming at your boat and wondering if the boat can take it.
It appears now that three such vessels were victims of such waves and did not make it.
Any time a small vessel goes to sea there is always a chance that it may not come back. It is still a shock and a great loss when it does happen.
All Nova Scotians feel the loss of these sailors and our sympathy goes out to all those who lost relatives, loved ones and friends in these three related tragedies.


SOCIAL SCIENCES
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I have previously stood in this House and condemned the government's decisions with respect to the centres of excellence project, in so far as they excluded completely and totally any project from the social sciences or the humanities.
I would like to quote briefly from the words of Allan Bromley, the American assistant to the President for science and technology policy. It is a veiy important quote which states:
Many of the outstanding problems we face today-such as the fate of the environment, the danger of nuclear war, the curse of world hunger, and the burgeoning costs of medical care, to name just a few-are often laid at the door of science and technology. Yet in all of these cases, the science and technology needed to solve these problems are effectively in hand. What we do not know are the social, behavioural, and economic consequences of the various possible courses of action available to us.
On this day, the third symposium of scientists and parliamentarians, I think it is befitting for the government to review its decision and to fund a social science or humanities project.


CAMBODIA
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Mr. Speaker, with all that is happening in the world it is easy to overlook the crisis in Cambodia. Yet immediate international attention is required because of the possible return to power of the reprehensible Khmer Rouge.
Since the Vietnamese withdrawal from Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge have launched a number of attacks and made some territorial gains. Their membership in the opposition coalition, recognized by the UN-thanks ironically to western support-creates a real possibility that they will be participants in a future Cambodian government.
I urge the Prime Minister to withdraw Canadian diplomatic support for the coalition and to oppose any new arrangement which would include the Khmer Rouge. Canada must also pressure other nations to follow suit and to act together to have China exercise a more responsible role in that region.
It is also time-indeed overdue-that Canada put in place, through non-governmental organizations, a development assistance package for Cambodia. Improved ties with the Hun Sen government might also be in order.
Finally, let us look at improving ties with the Vietnamese government. The war in Vietnam is long over. Vietnamese troops have now left Cambodia. Let us try to reintegrate Vietnam into the international community.
sit *	*


CHILD ABUSE
Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon our country paid a last tribute to the victims of the tragic incident that occured last Wednesday. As a result of these events, we have given serious thought to some of the situations in our society.
Today, I would like to consider one of these situations in particular, namely, child abuse.
In some countries, children die of hunger. They cannot ask for help because they do not have the strength to do so. In our supposedly wealthy and civilized country, there are also children who cry for help. These children have been abused, shifted from foster home to foster home, and often left fo fend for themselves.

December 11, 1989
There are children who are unloved, street children, children of divorced parents, unwanted children. And they are all very much alone.
At a time when people talk about the rights of the unborn, and so they should, perhaps we should also consider the rights of those who have already received the gift of life, but a life that is often one of undeserved suffering, with terrifying consequences.


HIGHWAYS
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, in this last week the Ontario government has committed almost half a billion dollars toward improving the highways in northern Ontario.
Premier David Peterson, the Minister of Transport, Bill Wrye, and the Minister of Northern Affairs, Rene Fontaine, realize the needs of the north. They have acted, and they should be congratulated.
We need this government to develop a national transportation policy which addresses the needs of the highways in northern Ontario.
If the planned cuts to VIA Rail proceed on January 15, residents of rural and small-town Canada will become more reliant than ever before on our highway infrastructure. I urge this government to follow the leadership demonstrated by the Ontario government and allocate sufficient resources to the development of highways in northern Ontario. This government can no longer use the excuse that it is waiting for the province of Ontario to act. Ontario has taken positive action, positive action to the tune of $460 million for future highway expansion.
The onus is now on this government to reciprocate. Show your commitment to northern Ontario. Prove that you do have a total commitment to the north of this country.


CANADIAN EXPLORATION INCENTIVE PROGRAM
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Exploration Incentive Program was introduced on May 3, 1988.
The program was a response to the concerns expressed by the natural resources sector about the impact of two factors that may make things difficult for companies that try to raise new capital by issuing flow-through shares to finance exploration activities, and I am referring to the stock market crash in 1987 and tax reform.
The CEIP expires on December 31, 1990, and today I am worried about the survival of this program.
Mr. Speaker, the next federal budget is imminent, and we must ensure that the finance minister does not get rid of the CEIP in the next Budget.


CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance for Trade and Job Opportunities has at long last decided to release a partial list of corporate donors that eagerly lined up to donate money to the free trade advertising extravaganza launched by big business in the last general election.
Contrary to earlier promises, this is not a complete list. Many American multinationals that were only too happy to go public with the support for the sell-out free trade deal have become surprisingly modest about releasing information about how much money they spent propping up the Tory Party. Companies refusing to release such information includes such huge U.S. companies as AT&T, GM and 3M. After shouting support for free trade from the roof-tops, why skulk in the closet about how much they spent supporting their Tory pals? Are they having an attack of conscience after seeing the disastrous effects of the deal on the Canadian economy? Or are they afraid to draw attention to themselves and endure the wrath of a duped Canadian public?
The most shameful aspect of this list is that every one of these huge corporations earned a tax deduction by donating vast sums to support the re-election of their cronies in the Tory Party. For example, Alcan contributed $250,000. Not only did this outstanding corporate citizen deduct every cent of this blatantly political contribution, but in 1986 the company managed to make so many tax deductions that it received a tax credit of $32 million after earning profits of $220 million. The Tory Party was so concerned about Alcan's measly profit of
December 11, 1989

$220 million that it decided to top it up with another $32 million of taxpayers' dollars.
In addition, four Canadian donors contributing over $250,000-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret having to interrupt the member.

Translation]


PATENT ACT
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, December 7 was the second anniversary of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, created as a result of the 1987 amendments to the Patent Act, contained in Bill C-22.
With these amendments, our government intended to guarantee consumer access to drugs at reasonable prices, while at the same time providing an incentive to medical research in Canada. And those are exactly the results we are seeing today.
According to the first report, this new policy saved the Canadian consumer betwen $60 to $80 million last year.
Furthermore, during the first years the act to amend the Patent Act was in effect, the pharmaceutical industry invested over $72 million in research and development in Quebec, with Montreal benefiting most from these investments and the new jobs they generate.
Mr. Speaker, without those endless discussions by members of the opposition, especially by Liberal senators who did everything they could to prevent these changes from being enacted by Parliament, consumers, industry and workers in Quebec and across Canada would have enjoyed benefits much sooner.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, December 10, was International Human Rights Day. It is therefore fitting to consider today the case of Reverend Laszlo Tokes of Romania.
Reverend Tokes is a well known religious leader and human rights advocate. Last year he boldly protested the "village destruction program" undertaken by his government. He has continued to knock on government doors and seek, through peaceful means, full enjoyment for all Romanian citizens of their right to private worship and community life.
For his determination to pursue his mission, he was evicted by his government from his congregation. Canada must persuade Romania to live up to its international responsibilities on human rights. Reverend Tokes, in fact all citizens of the world, have the right to practice their religion without fear of persecution.
I ask this government to take action to ensure that the Romanian government allow Reverend Tokes to continue to minister to his congregation. In the name of international solidarity, Canada must ensure that all citizens of the world be given their rightful place in their own country as we in our own land support the work of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.


TOURISM
Marcel R. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to pay tribute today in this House to a distinguished Quebecer who has made a name for himself in tourism in the Quebec city area.
Mr. Speaker, Jacques du Sault has just been named president of Canada's Capital Visitors and Convention Bureau following a nation-wide competition in which more than 220 candidates competed this prestigious position.
Jacques du Sault will be able to bring together people on both sides of the river in Ottawa-Hull and pool

December 11, 1989
everyone's efforts in the National Capital Region for properly planned and coordinated tourism development.
He has been a hotel keeper, founding president of the Quebec City Region Tourism Board, president of the Tourism Committee of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Metropolitan Quebec and director of the tourism development plan management committee for the greater Quebec region. His great personal experience, perfect bilingualism and desire to develop this beautiful region harmoniously will make Jacques du Sault an effective president.


GUN CONTROL
Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, today in Montreal thousands of people are mourning the deaths of 14 women at the hands of a gun-toting madman. He was able to buy his semi-automatic rifle because he had met all legal requirements.
On Saturday, the Prime Minister said the ease with which Marc Lepine obtained his instrument of mass murder was "serious and unacceptable". He is quoted as saying his government would deal with the problem if necessary.
The fact that a man with serious psychological problems was able to legally obtain a powerful rifle and kill and wound more than two dozen innocent people should make it obvious even to the Prime Minister that action is necessary.
At the end of October, the Minister of Justice said he expected to bring in gun control legislation before Christmas. On Friday, the Solicitor General said it would be January or possibly later before legislation is tabled.
The time for action is now. We cannot wait for more innocent blood to be shed.


THE LATE ROBERT HAMILTON HUBBARD
Mr. John E. Cole (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask this House to note the passing of a distinguished and scholarly Canadian gentleman. I refer to Robert Hamilton Hubbard who, until his sudden death this past November, served this nation in a quiet, unassuming and scholarly way, adding to our knowledge of ourselves as a nation and gently refining our view of the world.
It is not my intention to recite the details of Robert Hubbard's illustrious career, his entry into the Canadian Who's Who is almost four inches long, but to ask this House to note his passing and to acknowledge his aid to the ordinary business of Parliament.
I refer to the fact that the work of his later years; historian and cultural advisor to our governors general, and his unchallenged position as Canada's foremost art historian, made it an entirely natural matter to ask for his advice in an important artistic and cultural endeavour, such as the creation of national monuments.
As adviser to the committee formed to produce the splendid Diefenbaker monument that is engaged in similarly honouring Lester B. Pearson, Robert Hubbard will be missed both for the fine mind that he used to our benefit and for his gentlemanly and courteous demeanour which was a model to us all.


CLOSURE OF CFB SUMMERSIDE
George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, since the government announced its disastrous decision to close CFB Summerside, Prince Edward Islanders have presented many valid objections but their protests continue to fall on deaf ears.
Now the Medical Society of Prince Edward Island says the relocation of the 413 Search and Rescue Squadron to CFB Greenwood will jeopardize the health and lives of islanders due to delays in medical evacuations to the mainland. Under the most ideal conditions, a one-hour delay in missions will occur. In bad weather, departures from Greenwood are time consuming and dangerous, whereas from Summerside they are safe and efficient.
Islanders are already isolated and therefore vulnerable. Why is this government deliberately exposing them to unnecessary delays in medical treatment resulting in distress, pain and even death? Islanders have a right to efficient medical services which means keeping the 413 Squadron at CFB Summerside.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker,
. the carnage at the University of Montreal surely represents the manic edge of hatred and resentment by men against women achievers in non-traditional fields. Almost every woman in this House and other women who compete against men have experienced actions that reveal the misogyny that confronts women in universities, colleges, the workplace, the home, and on the streets of our nation. This hideously unjust desecration has brought home to most Canadians the need for action.
I urge the Prime Minister to establish a joint parliamentary committee to investigate violence against women, the harassment and the structural obstacles confronting women as we attempt to take our rightful place in society.
I also urge the Minister of Justice to bring forward gun control legislation to prohibit the sale or possession of automatic or semi-automatic weapons with the exception of those required by police forces. Lethal weapons should not be easily available to disturbed individuals. There should be no repetition of a mass killing such as the one in Montreal.


TOURISM
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern over the grave and ominous future that confronts the tourism industry in the north. The futile and uncoordinated policies that this government has put forth will do nothing but decimate this key mechanism for northern development.
Tourism is perhaps Canada's biggest hidden industry, hidden to the tune of $21 billion per year. It plays a major role in stimulating northern development. Yet this government has done nothing to promote tourism in this country. On the contrary, with the cutbacks to VIA Rail and the impending goods and services tax, the government has come a long way in promoting tourism in other countries except our own. The loss of VIA Rail's Canadian route, combined with the loss of other northern routes, does not bode well for prospects for further development.
Oral Questions
The government has said that the GST will not affect tourism. However, the Conference Board of Canada estimates that $1 billion will be lost in 1991 alone and the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association has predicted a 20 per cent decline in tourism in the north. The government should be seizing every opportunity to expand this sector of the economy. When will this government give tourism the high priority status that it deserves?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister have insisted that there will not be any major changes to the goods and services tax proposal. The minister said no tax on groceries, and some Conservative MPs said: "Well, let's try it". The minister said no to GST on existing housing, and the Blenkam report says: "Let's do it".
Now, in what has been described by some as a non-criminal leak, the government says: "No taxes on groceries, no taxes on existing housing, but a GST rate of 7 per cent".
Will the Finance Minister not wait this time for polling results and withdraw his crazy quilt patch-work proposal because Canadians are not prepared to take seven strokes of the tax whip any more than they are prepared to take nine strokes of the GST tax whip.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I might take that particular suggestion more seriously if I had had any sort of alternative proposal from the Liberal party during the course of the last four months.


Ms. Clancy:: Scrap it.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The hon. member from Halifax says "scrap it". This is the sort of tax that we have been struggling with as a country for 65 years now. There was a Royal commission in 1940. There was another commission in 1955, another one in 1966, another one in 1973, and another one in 1983. All of them said: "Let's get rid of the tax". We have to move to a new type of sales tax system because the existing tax is hurting the economy.

Oral Questions
We are going to be proceeding with this tax. As the Prime Minister said, we will be making an announcement sometime before Christmas. As soon as I have the precise timing on that announcement, I will be advising the House.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, the federal government is now negotiating with the provinces, no doubt to force them to accept an agreement on a national sales tax. Does the government intend to force the provinces to accept a national sales tax by freezing transfer payments for post-secondary education and health care? My question to the Minister of Finance is this: Does he now intend to put through his goods and services tax on the backs of the provinces?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it is not a
question of forcing the provinces to do anything. We had a meeting of federal and provincial finance ministers last Thursday. At that meeting there was a discussion of the goods and services tax. The provinces indicated there were a number of areas on which they wished to have further discussion. We have established a process, starting with meetings probably very early in January so we can pursue some of these concerns that the provinces have.
There is no question, there never has been a question, of whether or not we will force the provinces to do something. If they wish to join a national sales tax at some time in the future we have said all along that the door was open. There will be nothing done in the proposal, either in the design or in the implementation, to preclude that from happening.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, the government now has been dog-dancing around the goods and services tax proposal for quite some time. The minister just referred to whether or not there were any alternatives.
What I think would be interesting for Canadians to know is whether the Minister of Finance recognizes that he must focus on interest rates in this country that are up to 5 per cent higher than interest rates in the United States and on a Canadian dollar that has gone over 86
cents. Those two single things alone cause more damage to exports in Canada than anything that the MST has done over the years.
The question to the Minister of Finance is: After all this time spent on the goods and services taxes and all the flaws that are in it, is he prepared now to focus on doing something about the high interest rates and the high value of the Canadian dollar in this country to try to protect our export industries?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I think that the hon. member can only look back over the last five years to the number of statements I have made which recognize very clearly the importance of the export industry in this country and also the importance of having low interest rates.
We do have a problem of inflation in the country, a problem that is not just limited to certain parts of the country, but is growing more and more widespread across it. It is this problem that we feel we must deal with and we are going to deal with it, but that takes time. Unfortunately, it is taking longer than we expected because of the underlying strength in the economy. There are some signs that have appeared in the economic data over the last little while which indicate that there is some subsiding here, and hopefully there will be some time in the future when we can see lower interest rates.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, after months of hearing the Minister of Finance say that the goods and services tax rate could not be reduced from 9 per cent, Canadians are not going to be fooled by the suggestion of a 7 per cent rate. The Minister's problem, I suggest to him, is his own credibility.
No one believes that this government is not going to bring in the tax at one rate and increase it as soon as it gets a chance to do so. Canadians know that no matter what rate the GST is at the tax is going to be an administrative nightmare. They know that no matter what the rate is, it is not going to be visible. They know it is going to hurt the poor and the disadvantaged.
Why does the Minister not listen to what Canadians are saying and scrap this insane tax instead of sitting around listening to the pollsters trying to figure out how to hoodwink Canadians?
December 11, 1989


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there is so much that is wrong in the preamble of the hon. member's question that I do not know where to start. Let me make it clear.
The question has not been whether or not you can get an 8 per cent rate, a 7 per cent rate, or a 6 per cent rate. It is how you get to that rate, and that is where the difficult trade-offs come. This is what I have been pointing out time and time again. When people ask me that question on rate, I say there are very difficult trade-offs and the question that you have to respond to is what trade-offs are you prepared to make.
We had some useful suggestions from the Conservative members of the finance committee. We got absolutely nothing from the Liberal Party of Canada as to how we might get the rate down. As I replied in answer to one of the earlier questions, it strikes me as very unusual that we should have this posturing on the part of Liberal members when they have done absolutely nothing to contribute to the dialogue and the debate that is going to result in a better sales tax system in this country.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I turn the minister's words back to him. The problem with the GST is that it is such a mess it is hard to know where to start to criticize it.
The government is proposing to replace a tax, which is currently paid by about 75,000 firms, with one that is going to be collected by about 1.25 million firms, and most of them are going to file monthly forms. Whatever the rate, Canada is going to be the only developed country in the world with a two-tier retail tax, and the minister will enjoy the distinction of having introduced the single most complex fiscal measure in Canada's history.
Will the minister not admit that implementing the GST in January, 1991, will be an administrative fiasco and the only reason for his obsession with this date is that he hopes election.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, at some time governments have to decide on these major issues and do something.
As I indicated in response to an earlier question, the Liberal party looked at five consecutive reports every ten years and ignored each one of them. Each time a report came back it stated: "Get rid of the manufacturers' sales
Oral Questions
tax." The point is that at the time when we know there is a tax that is a bad tax for the country, it must be removed and we are going to remove it.
The hon. member said there are only 75,000 people who pay the tax directly, but indirectly every Canadian consumer pays the existing federal sales tax. But it is invisible. No one knows that it is there. In response to my friend from Gloucester, this tax is going to be a very visible tax. There will not be one person in the country who will not be aware that there is a goods and services tax, and that is accountability. For years and years the Liberal party ignored the fact that the existing tax is hidden. This is one of the things we are going to change because it brings about better accountability in government.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Government figures for next year's farm net income show declines of 54 per cent in the province of Alberta, declines of 87 per cent in Manitoba, and a whopping decline of 101 per cent in Saskatchewan. His anti-inflation program seems to have wiped out farm incomes altogether on the prairies.
Farm families have no unemployment insurance, they are not eligible for welfare, and other safety nets miss them as well. Since they will not have enough income to pay cash costs, let alone something to support families and make capital payments, what does the government intend to do?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture has addressed that question in the House. There is a major conference on today and tomorrow that will involve discussion of that very question. I expect that the more appropriate time to respond to that question is after the consultation has occurred, after the Minister of Agriculture has listened to the concerns of the farming community. After that we can make some decisions.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, global farm production has failed to meet global demand in three consecutive years. Yet, Canadian grain prices are lower this year than last year. Will the Minister of Finance abandon his high

Oral Questions
interest rate, high dollar policy to allow farmers to reduce their input costs and increase the export value of their grain?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think if the hon. member reflects on the purpose of the goods and services tax, he will see that that is a means by which all farmers can remove the tax on all of their-


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: That wasn't the question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The hon. member is shaking his head. Clearly, the hon. member does not understand what the goods and services tax is all about. It will allow the farmer to remove all forms of taxes on all business inputs into the farming operation.
The hon. member has raised the question of interest rates. If he thinks back to 1980-81-82, at a time when interest rates were very high in this country, it was because the government of the day forgot and ignored the whole question of inflation that was building through the course of the seventies-


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: You wiped out income.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It did not address the problem, and the result was the blow-off of high inflation of 13 per cent, high interest rates of about 20 per cent to 25 per cent and the tremendous disaster which resulted from that. That is what we are trying to avoid. We understand that there are concerns which are being expressed now, but if we do not address this problem we are going to get right back into the mess-


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: No income is not inflationary.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can only yell. If he could listen a bit, he might learn something.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, I will also direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Article 703 of the free trade agreement states that in order to facilitate trade in agricultural goods, Canada and the United States shall work together to eliminate what is termed "restrictive trade barriers". Given the fact that supply management programs are under heavy attack during the current GATT negotiations and also by the international Cairns Group, constituting what we could define as "restrictive trade barriers", will the minister agree that the future of Canada's supply management systems under the provisions of the free trade agreement in fact hinges on our successful performance at these negotiations?
Second, will the minister specify what actions his government is prepared to initiate and to take to ensure that our supply management systems, as we know them today, are going to be maintained?


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to respond to the hon. member, especially at a time like this when we have so many farmers and agri-food people in Ottawa to attend a conference. This conference is one of the largest ever held, where all of the sectors of the agri-food industry are brought together to work toward a common goal of achieving a better income and a future for the industry.
The member addressed supply management. Part of that meeting is devoted particularly to supply management, where these issues will be addressed. I hope that some hon. members will be there and take part by providing input and listening to the concerns of their constituents as well. We would welcome all of you to come to that conference this afternoon and tomorrow.
We are firmly committed to the continuation of supply management. We are addressing it and working hand in hand with the producers on supply management to keep a viable industry operational and working with them at GATT in what decisions are being taken there. We will stand firmly committed to working with them and to the supply management sector.


PORNOGRAPHY
Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, the fact that violence in the media contributes to violence against women is accepted by virtually all experts. Twice this government has introduced legislation against pornography and twice has had to withdraw it.
My question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Will the minister undertake today to bring in legislation against pornography that includes sanctions against violence, violence outside of sexual context, in movies, television, videos and magazines?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is correct that during the last Parliament we brought in legislation which would have tackled the very serious
December 11, 1989

problem of pornography. It included child pornography, violence and all sorts of pornography.
Had my hon. friend been here I am sure she might have been able to persuade the members of her party who filibustered it to let it go to committee so that it could have been studied in detail. Unfortunately, we were unable to move it through the House due to the intransigence of the Liberal party.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the minister knows better. That legislation was very defective. One of its shortcomings was that violence in itself, apart from sexuality, violence against women was not identified in that legislation as pornography. Is the minister prepared to bring forward legislation that this House would support that will deal with that kind of pornography?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I welcome my friend's transformation on the road back from Damascus. I hope that my hon. friend will know that during the previous administration this area was never properly addressed. We tried in good faith to address it. We brought in a bill. We do not claim, as did the previous liberal administration, that everything we do is perfect. We brought it in and had we got it to committee that very important subject could have been addressed. I regret that. However, we are working on it and I hope to bring something forward in the near future.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. Transportation is a key factor to Canada's economic and social well-being. It is the life line I would suggest to all the outlying regions of our country. Yet the proposed goods and services tax will apply to all transportation costs whether it be at 9 per cent, 7 per cent or any per cent. Northerners will pay more. They will pay more for the snowsuits for their children. They will pay more for their heating bills and they will pay more for all other necessities of life because transportation costs will be built in, and those are higher.
Oral Questions
Will the minister admit that the goods and services tax discriminates against people in outlying regions? What does he propose to do about it?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say very clearly that the tax on transportation cost is removed by the particular design of the goods and services tax so that there is no tax on the transportation cost.
The hon. member is expressing some surprise on that. I would suggest that she learn how the tax is designed to remove the tax from all business inputs, and one of those inputs is transportation costs. The hon. member has zeroed in on one aspect of the tax but I think it is very clear in the economic analysis that has been done that the regions of the country, because they normally depend more on exports, normally depend on very capital intensive industries, are beneficiaries of the goods and services tax. That is why the regions of the country benefit more than parts of the country like southern Ontario or southern Quebec. That comes from the nature of the tax itself.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe this. The Minister of Finance does not understand his own tax. Since when does a vendor pay a cost of transportation and not add it into the cost that he charges to the consumer? When you buy a refrigerator in northern Ontario, do you not pay for the transportation costs in the final price, and then there is a tax?
What will the minister do to offset this double whammy to people who live away from the major centres? Maybe he should study his own tax.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker I think that I understand the tax having sat around boardroom tables and talked to people from coast to coast to coast on the nature of this tax. I think I do understand how the tax is constructed.
Let me again go back to the comments that the hon. member has raised. There is no question that transportation costs are one of the costs in a product that is consumed in any part of the country. That is only one part of the cost. There are other costs that are part of the over-all cost of the product that is consumed but the key here is that you have to look at the broad benefit, the

December 11, 1989
Oral Questions
broad impact of the tax to different parts of the country as opposed to identifying one particular element of it.
As an example, the costs of accommodation in downtown Toronto are far greater than they are in other parts of the country. If we want to zero in on one particular aspect of the tax, I could draw an argument that says the tax is unfair in downtown Toronto. You have to look at the broad impact of the tax and that is where the economic analysis says that the regions of the country are greater beneficiaries than is the case in the more developed areas of southwestern Ontario.


FISHERIES
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He knows that today National Sea Products announced that 1,562 people will be losing their jobs.
The minister has had a special cabinet committee on this crisis for the last six months. Name one thing that the government is going to do to keep those plants going and to help those communities. Why has the government done nothing after six months of having a special committee? Why has it done nothing to keep those plants going, even on a part-time basis?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, no words exchanged in this House could capture the distress that families are going to feel as a result of the decisions announced by National Sea Products this morning. These decisions affect the communities of Canso, St. John's and North Sydney as well.
It is true to say that the government has not announced a major package of initiatives to date but we do recognize the serious dilemma facing the groundfish sector in Atlantic Canada. We are very much in tune with the needs, sentiments and anxieties of the people living in communities affected by these matters.
That is why my colleagues, the Minister for International Trade and the Minister for Public Works, in Canso and St. John's East this morning announced major initiatives in the area of industrial adjustment and industrial diversification. There will be further information to follow, as appropriate.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the minister completely ignored the question. The government has had a special committee of cabinet for six months. No announcements have been made. They have known for weeks and weeks and weeks that these closures would be occurring. Why has the government done nothing to maintain the jobs in those communities? Why has it done absolutely nothing?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, it is not true to suggest that anyone has known for weeks and weeks that specific communities would be impacted by specific decisions.
These are decisions that are taken by the corporate side and they depend very heavily on the circumstances in the market-place and with respect to resource supply. I repeat that the government is taking measures to ensure that there is a bright future, that there are in many cases alternatives and in some cases alternatives within the fishery in order that these communities can continue to to survive and prosper as this government would intend to be the case.

[ Translation ]


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stand-stead):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Since November 29, Richard Bilodeau, a Canadian living in my riding, has been detained in prison in New Hampshire, in the United States, following an automobile accident in which three people were killed. U.S. authorities object to his release. They claim, on the basis of a written opinion by the U.S. Department of Justice, that the extradition treaty between Canada and the United States does not apply in the case of manslaughter and criminal negligence, when such offences are committed while driving a car. The district attorneys of the State of New Hampshire are concerned about the possibility that Canadian authorities might not observe the extradition treaty.
Clearly, Mr. Bilodeau's rights, are not being respected, and he has every right to our support and assistance.
Could the Minister of Justice reaffirm his confidence in the extradition treaty between Canada and the United States, and re-establish the facts with respect to its scope and eventual compliance with the treaty? Furthermore, could the minister reassure Mr. Bilodeau's family and

contact the U.S. Department of Justice to ensure that his rights are respected?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question, if I may, on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The extradition treaty which is in effect between Canada and the United States does apply to this type of situation. The government is aware of Mr. Bilodeau's case and his difficulties in New Hampshire. We are following the situation carefully. I am sure the United States of America and the courts in that state will preserve Mr. Bilodeau's rights. I understand that the matter should be solved shortly.


FISHERIES
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Beausejour):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It is indeed a sad day for Atlantic Canada, especially for the workers in St. John's and Canso. There will be over 1,500 jobs lost and in the case of Canso, a loss of 750 jobs means the closure of the community. This government cannot allow this closure to go ahead without proper plans and proper programs to save the community.
What considerations were given by this government for the people and the workers of that community. Did the bottom line of National Sea Products weigh more than all those people put together in those communities?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it is very important to know that the government will be very concerned with the workers and with the communities. That is our first concern.
There are a number of things under way as the Minister for International Trade and the Minister of Public Works announced this morning. First of all, we are ensuring in the short term that all of the workers will qualify for unemployment insurance and if they do not that they will obtain sufficient weeks of work to qualify. Second, there is a particular concern for older workers
Oral Questions
and the Older Workers Adjustment Program will apply in this case. Third, there is a community development fund that will be a significant step for the communities which are affected in terms of helping them to build a future.
It was also said this morning in our announcement that the level of funding will be determined by the size of the lay-offs and the needs of each community because we want to ensure that each community is looked at individually.


Fernand Robichaud: This still means that the plant will be closing.
How can we really be sure that the government has looked at all the options for keeping the Canso plant open? Why did National Sea announce all these cutbacks even before the fisheries plan for 1990 was published? My question is as follows: Is the government an accomplice in all these lay-offs and plant closings?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, that is certainly not the case. My colleagues who have sat and discussed these pending developments without knowing which specific communities would be hit and to what degree have wrestled intensely for several months with the dilemma posed to a number of communities in Atlantic Canada, not only because of the market factors I mentioned but also because of the deteriorating abundance of supply to these plants.
The question then arose as to whether a number of plants could be kept open by operating on such a marginal basis that they no longer became economic and viable. We decided that those decisions in the final analysis were best left to the private sector but that the government would move in with the full strength of resources to look after the needs of people, to look after the rejuvenation of these communities. My colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, will in the days ahead be giving further detail on how we intend to do that.

Oral Questions


NORTHERN TAX ALLOWANCE
[Stage Direction]
December 11, 1989
Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane -Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. At the end of October the northern tax benefits report was made public. If the recommendations are implemented as proposed, some 72 communities in northern Ontario will lose this benefit and drain some $5 million from the economy. Some of the communities like Marathon, Terrace Bay, Schreiber and Geraldton should also have qualified.
Considering that seven sawmills have closed and 2,000 jobs have been lost already, can the minister assure this House and northern Ontarians that he will totally reject the report's recommendation?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has said, the report was made available some time toward the end of October. We have been reviewing this report and are continuing to do that work. At this point I do not have any statement as to what the government's position will be.
We appreciate the work that was done by that task force, a task force composed of people who live in isolated communities and who spent a good deal of time going around the country understanding the problems and trying to come up with a proposal that was an equitable and stable proposal. That is the result that they have presented to the government.
As I said, we are studying this now and I hope that not too far down the road we will have a decision.


FORESTRY
Bob Wood: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade, I have a question for the Minister of Forestry that also deals with the serious northern Ontario problem.
It seems contradictory that on the one hand the government claims that the manufacturers' sales tax is hurting Canadian exports and uses this as a rationale for introducing the goods and services tax, yet this government has turned around and hit our forestry sector with a 15 per cent export surtax in this era of so-called free trade.
In view of the fact that our dollar has reached a 10-year high, making our exports less competitive, when will this government stop sabotaging our primary resource industries and ensure that we are competing on a level playing field?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, we are, of course, sensitive to the difficulties of this particular industry, particularly in northern Ontario. A number of factors are at play, including the fibre supply situation, the exchange rate and perhaps, more important, a decline in housing starts in the United States. All of these are important factors.
The hon. member knows that it would be up to the province of Ontario principally to propose, as other provinces have done, that certain offsets be required before this particular tax can be eliminated.
Let us not forget that the tax does not accrue to an American jurisdiction, but accrues to the province of Ontario which, of course, has the option to return some of this money back to the resource in northern Ontario.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
On Saturday the Prime Minister announced that the government was prepared to drop the rate of the proposed GST to 7 per cent through major spending cuts of up to $6 billion per year. This promise carries an implied threat. Since the 1988 election we have seen the elimination of universality in our social programs, further cuts to health care and education, cuts in regional development, the gutting of VIA Rail, the removal of government financing of the UI program and the lay-off of tens of thousands of Canadians.
Will the Minister of Finance confirm that the proposal to reduce the proposed rate to 7 per cent will mean further massive cuts to programs affecting Canadians and will he tell us where he plans to cut back?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think that the preamble to the hon. member's statement was as loaded with inaccuracies as I have heard in any preamble since I have been in the House.

The Prime Minister did not say that. He did indicate that there would be some spending cuts over the course of the next little while. I think the hon. member, if she is listening to people in Canada, will find that they are concerned about the debt. They are concerned about the level of government spending. They are concerned about the level of taxation.
Canadians want to be assured that we are spending taxpayers' dollars as effectively and as efficiently as possible. They also want to know that we are doing everything we can to get the level of debt down so that we are not carrying over to future generations a very heavy burden of trying to support that debt.
This is what we have been trying to do since November 1984 and we are going to continue to do that because we understand the significance of debt control in the future health of this country and in our ability to be able to maintain the programs that Canadians value.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, the finance minister maintains the pretence that the GST is inevitable and he has said again today in this House that he has no intention of withdrawing it.
I think he has already answered this question but I am going to put it so I can get it straight from him. Is it not the strategy of this government to feed the anxiety over the federal deficit in order to sell this regressive sales tax?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is a question of feeding any anxieties. It is simply a question of reading the facts. The facts are there. The debt in this country is too high. It must be controlled. The deficit when we came in was $38 billion. We got it down to $28.7 billion last year, but that is still too high. It means that we have to continue to control government spending. That is the best way-


Lynn Hunter: What about interest rates?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The hon. member throws in another question. Possibly she could get it all together and put the question to me at one time and I will give her the answer she wants.
Oral Questions FISHERIES


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries.
If, as the minister suggests, some of those plants are not economically viable, I believe he will agree that he must bear a fair amount of the responsibility for that. While he stood by and let the Spanish and the Portuguese rape our fish stocks those plants were having trouble finding enough fish to process.
I ask him, now that St. John's and Canso is shut down thanks to his mismanagement of the fishery, what is he prepared to do to prevent further closings, including plant closings by FPI down the road?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, later this week I will be meeting again with the Atlantic fisheries ministers who provide guidance and whom I consult regularly on the proper management plans for the Atlantic groundfish industry.
At the end of December we will be announcing our plans for 1990. In view of the extraordinary circumstances in the market-place and the persistent decline of the resource in some zones, extraordinary measures are going to be required. I will be prepared to give the member a full account of some of these measures later this month.
Meanwhile, I want to assure the hon. member that we have taken every measure necessary to eliminate foreign over-fishing of our domestic stocks within the Canadian 200-mile economic zone and to bring all possible pressures to bear internationally to end foreign over-fishing beyond that limit, two initiatives which the government of which he was a part failed to take in all the time it was in office.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary, I want to come to the question that has been put to the minister in various forms as to what the government intends to do to help those people who are affected by plant closings. He can look up the line to his minister of manpower, but if she stands up, I hope she does better than she did the first time.

Oral Questions
I am not talking about the established programs, the stuff to put people on UI. I am asking the minister of fisheries or the minister of manpower what programs there are to give these people alternate job opportunities, not the stuff we already know about the UI. That is not what they want.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I have already told the House that the entire adjustment mechanism that we have put forward is designed to ensure short-term assistance. I see the hon. member is not even listening.


Roger Simmons: Point of order.


Barbara Jean McDougall: It is to ensure short-term assistance that will help to facilitate some long-term solutions.
The problem clearly is a resource problem, as the hon. member knows. That means that our resources as a government working together with the provincial government have to be to help people through the short term and then to move toward some solutions for the long term.
The community diversification issue which I spoke about before is one that is going to help communities to establish new directions and it will help deploy the resources in a way that is helpful to them.


The Deputy Speaker:: We will close Question Period with one question from the member for Vancouver East and one question from the member for Abitibi.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
This past weekend, the Canadian Ethnocultural Conference on equality rights for ethnic and visible minorities established that racism in Canada is increasing and cases which will take years to process, involving discrimination, have yet to be tested under the Charter.
I want to ask the minister if he will assure minority groups and disadvantaged people across Canada that the court challenge program which is essential if these people are to have access to the courts will not be terminated in three months' time and that there will be funding assured for 1991 and beyond, as our own Human
Rights Committee of this House has recommended today, that it should continue to the year 2000. Will he recommend this?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I know of no thought being given to changing that program.


NORTHERN AND ISOLATED AREAS
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
At the request of the Quebec Treasury Board, the Bureau de la statistique du Quebec has conducted a study to reclassify northern and isolated communities in Quebec according to the disparity index of 84 isolated communities in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, my question is as follows: Could the Minister confirm whether the Task Force on Tax Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas has read Quebec's final report,-I repeat its final report-which classifies isolated communities from 1 to 84, Joutel ranking 45th, Radisson 64th, Lebel-sur-Quevillon 70th, Matagami 79th and Chapais 88th. This study is a contradiction of the task force's report-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me confirm that it is my understanding that the members of the task force appointed by the federal government did consult with the members of the Quebec study group that were looking into this particular situation. The federal task force report did come out before the Quebec report was made available, but they had consulted prior to the completion of the conclusions they came to in the federal task force report.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that at the next sitting of the House, immediately before the Order of the Day is called for resuming debate on government Motion No. 1, and on any amendments proposed thereto, I will move that the debate shall not be further adjourned.
December 11, 1989



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-4, an act to amend the Energy Supplies Emergency Act and to amend the Access to Information Act in consequence thereof, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.
Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved: that the bill be concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Philip Derek Lewis: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments just to review Bill C-4. Just over ten years ago, the Energy Supplies Emergency Act was put into place to ensure that Canada has an appropriate contingency plan in place to deal with any possible disruption in the international oil market.
As a result of the oil market crisis in 1973 and 1974, Canada became a party to the agreement of an international energy program which is administered by the International Energy Agency, the IEA. Through the IEA, 21 nation members are joined in planning for their collective energy and economic security.
The Energy Supplies Emergency Act established the Energy Supplies Allocation Board, ESAB, and made it responsible for Canada's fulfilment of the act's objectives and programs.
The act underwent a series of amendments in 1982 to improve the allocation and rationing programs. Again the government is advancing another series of housekeeping amendments in Bill C-4 to overcome operational problems which the industry and the board together have identified.
Government Orders
I will very briefly review the clauses of this bill. Clause 1 amends the definition of the wholesale consumer to include owners of homes, farms and small businesses and thus ensure their fair share of available supplies in case of allocation or rationing.
Clause 2 amends the composition of the Energy Supplies Allocation Board, removing Petro-Canada's membership from the board. Since its appointment to the board over a decade ago, Petro-Canada has evolved from being an instrument of public policy to becoming a major competitor in the market-place. It is now an inappropriate time to have Petro-Canada represented on the board, given the confidentiality of information supplied to the board and the control which the board would exercise on the marketing side of the petroleum industry, in the event of a declared emergency. This amendment is designed to remove Petro-Canada's conflict of interest.
In line with the Clause 2, amendment Clause 3 replaces Petro-Canada on the international agency's standing group on emergency questions with a senior official from ESAB or Energy, Mines and Resources.
Clause 4 removes an ambiguity in relation to ESAB's powers to regulate wholesale prices in an allocation program. It authorizes the board to set the manner for determining wholesale prices for controlled products. This is in addition to the existing authority to set prices or a range of prices and would allow ESAB to be sensitive to market forces.
Clause 5(1) would provide flexibility to ESAB to use any department or agency of the Government of Canada including Canada Post Corporation to distribute, return and account for rationing documents.
Clause 5(2) extends the powers of ESAB to regulate rather than prescribe retail prices under the rationing programs.
Clause 5(3) would allow financial institutions under provincial authority, for example, credit unions and caisse populates, to participate in the delivery of the rationing program along with banks and trust companies.
Clause 6 relates to the contractual supply obligations at the time of allocation and rationing. This amendment would make clear that contracts would remain in force despite price changes arising from the board's regulation in times of emergency.

December 11, 1989
Government Orders
Clause 7 concerns petroleum companies and their role in ESAB. During a national emergency, it is essential that companies be able to discuss their supply situation at meetings of the petroleum industry advisory committee. This is made possible by exemption from the Competition Act. The amendment simply extends the protection under the Competition Act from 12 months to 24 months in order to save time and effort, as the process of obtaining the exemption involves a number of months each time.
Clause 8 would place a duty of confidentiality on ESAB, its officers, its independent contractors, agents and employees assigned to it. It further provides that confidential information may not be released for legal proceedings except for administration and enforcement of this act and for criminal proceedings under an act of Parliament.
As a consequence of adopting the aforementioned amendment of confidentiality of information, Clause 9 amends the schedule to the Access to Information Act by adding the Energy Supplies Emergency Act.
The need for Canada to maintain its state of preparedness against a possible petroleum emergency continues to be an important component of Canadian energy policy. The bill before the House today is simply a further step in the process of strengthening the provisions of the Energy Supplies Emergency Act so that they may be more effectively implemented in the future.
I would like to thank the members of the committee on all sides for the work that they have done.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: government's action may be another step on the role to privatizing Petro-Canada.
The reason we are so concerned about this happening is that once shares are privately owned, the policies of that company will serve the interests of the shareholders and not necessarily the interests of Government of Canada or the interests of Canadians. If it ever happened that Petro-Canada was privatized, concerns with profit could come before concerns with the environment, with energy self-sufficiency and with security of supply. This would remove options the government and all Canadians now have regarding their energy future.
I also have concerns about whether there will be a full and frank debate on the merits of privatization or whether the government will go blindly ahead as it did on other issues. The VIA Rail issue comes to mind as one example of this. In this instance, the government refused to listen to Canadians and even to Parliament. Instead, it chose to follow a policy that suited its own political interests. So will a Petro-Canada debate be another example of this arrogance? I certainly hope not.
The other concern I have with regard to privatization is the sale of Canada Post. In my province of Prince Edward Island and in other areas of rural Canada, post offices have been shut down because of this government's policy. In Clause 5 of this bill, the government continues that process by removing Canada Post from the plan and allowing other government agencies to perform functions that would have been performed by the post office.
By removing the reference to Canada Post, the government is signalling a third change of plans for the post office. By nudging Canada Post even further along the path of privatization, this government is putting more rural post offices at risk. In so doing, it is putting a way of life in rural communities at risk as well.
Another important issue raised by this bill is the free trade agreement. As we know, this deal makes it possible for the United States to continue to receive energy from Canada while Canadians are being forced to cut back. Under Article 904 of the agreement, if Canada wants to
Government Orders
cut back its energy exports to the United States, it must first cut back supplies to Canadians.
The amount we keep from the Americans is just a drop in the bucket by their standards, but the amount that we deprive our fellow Canadians of may be much more serious. In a country like Canada with a cold climate, energy reductions could have major effects. If Canada proceeds with energy conservation and energy efficiency in an effort to protect the environment, the room for cutting back will be even smaller. That is another reason to safeguard our energy supply.
We think that the trade deal fails to do this. Instead, what it does is it puts at risk Canada's future energy security. As we see it, Canada's energy bounty should benefit Canadians first and Americans second. We are not convinced that the free trade agreement follows that philosophy.
The Minister of Energy has said that Canada's obligations under the international energy agreement are more demanding than those under the free trade agreement, and therefore we should not be worried about the FTA, but rather the IEA. But as the minister knows, the free trade agreement governs trade in normal as well as emergency situations. So that argument really does not convey the whole picture.
Under the international energy agreement, Canada is obliged to share up to 7 per cent of its oil with other countries at the time of international disruption. The free trade agreement does nothing to limit our obligations. In fact, it increases them by extending our obligations to non-emergency situations as well.
I would like to comment briefly on the context into which Bill C-4 fits, and what this government should be doing in this regard in the future.
As we all know, major disruptions in the oil supply do not occur every day. The last two, in 1972-73, and in 1978-79, were due to international conflicts concerning oil-producing countries. But the world today is not the same as it was 20, 10 or even one year ago. Major political, economic and social changes have taken place which bode well for the future.
The dismantling of the Berlin wall, for example, is just one event, but it symbolizes the whole easing of tensions between east and west. Canadians can be encouraged by

December 11, 1989
Government Orders
such events. In fact, a recent poll by the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security found that Canadians today consider environmental and economic threats to be more serious than military threats. When asked what will be the pressing concerns in the year 2000, Canadians ranked the environment even higher.
I think the lesson that we learn here is that the government should be stressing the environment in its policies. Oil spills, not oil shocks, are threatening to become the real energy emergency issue in the future.
This government has been slow to respond to environmental issues which threaten not only our energy future, but our very survival as well. For example, the government has cut back spending on conservation and alternative energy from $410 million in 1984-85, to $49 million in 1989-90. In my province of Prince Edward Island, the federal energy conservation office has been closed. The same is true all across this country.
These programs help provinces like mine diversify their energy mix and become less dependent on oil. In Prince Edward Island, we are trying to do this by using biomass fuel. In doing so, we are not only helping the environment and getting ourselves off oil, we are also creating jobs.
The federal government would do well to assist provinces like Prince Edward Island generate industries which not only reduce our dependency on oil, but on federal transfer payments as well.
I would urge this government to prepare for the real energy emergency in the future, and of right now, the environment. It should be listening to Canadians on environmental issues, working within the IEA to push for global action on the environment. Opponents of measures such as carbon tax have argued there is no point in putting a carbon tax on fuel sold to Canadians while fuels sold in the United States and elsewhere are not similarly taxed. This would only hurt Canadians, they argue.
I suggest by working within the IEA and within other organizations, the government could push for measures by all countries so that both Canadians and the environment come out on top. Mr. Speaker, that generally covers my concerns about the issues raised in and by Bill C-4.
I just want to conclude by saying that while I am pleased that the government is taking steps to prepare for emergencies, I have some serious concerns about how it is doing so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-23, an act to amend the National Energy Board Act and to repeal certain enactments in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are 16 motions in amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Malpeque set down in the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-23, an act to amend the National Energy Board Act and to repeal certain enactments in consequence thereof.

All of these motions are in order and deal with three different areas or subject matters.

Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9 deal with international power lines and are in order. They will be grouped for debate and a vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9.

Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 10 which deal with interprovincial power lines are in order and will be grouped for debate.
A vote on motion No. 6 will apply to motions Nos. 7, 8 and 10.
December 11, 1989



Motions Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 deal with the exportation of electricity. They are in order and will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 11 will apply to Motions Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16.

I will now propose the first grouping, namely motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9, to the House.


MEASURE TO AMEND
Catherine S. Callbeck: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-23 be amended in Clause 23 by striking out lines 20 to 28 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"58.11(1) Except in the case of an international power line in respect of which an election is made under section 58.23 and which the Board considers to be an international power line that is to be constructed and operated under a certificate issued under section
58.16,	the Board shall, on application to it, without holding a public hearing, and following an assessment by the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, issue a permit authorizing the construction and operation of an international power line."
Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-23 be amended in Clause 23 by striking out lines 7 and 8 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"mine whether the international power line should be designated as an international power line that is to be constructed and operated under a certificate issued under section 58.16."
Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-23 be amended in Clause 23 by striking out lines 9 to 32 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"58.14(1) Where it appears to the Board that it is necessary to complement any measure taken in respect of an international power line by the governments of the provinces through which the line is to pass or to take any measure that should have been taken in respect of an international power line by such governments, the Board may designate the power line as an international power line that is to be constructed and operated under a certificate issued under section
58.16.
(2) In designating an international power line as an international power line that is to be constructed and operated under a certificate issued under section 58.16., the Board shall have regard to all considerations that appear to it to be relevant, including
(a)	the effect of the power line on the provinces other than those through which the line is to pass; and
Government Orders
(b)	the impact of the construction or operation of the power line on the environment."
Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-23 be amended in Clause 23 by striking out lines 34 to
41 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"make an order revoking any permit issued in respect of an international power line."
Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-23 be amended in Clause 23 by striking out lines 10 to
20 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"emor in Council and pursuant to an assessment by the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, issue a certificate in respect of
(a)	an international power line in relation to which an order has or has not been made,
(b)	an international power line in relation to which an election is filed under section 58.23, or
(c)	an international power line in relation to which a designation is made under section 58.4,".
Motion No. 9.
That Bill C-23 be amended in Clause 23 by striking out lines 37
to 42 at page 20.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that we are debating Bill C-23, an act to amend the National Energy Board Act. This year is the thirtieth anniversary of that board, an organization that has served Canada extremely well and one which has developed a reputation as a defender of the national interest in energy matters, no matter which way the political winds happen to be blowing.
The board's solid reputation and the importance to Canada of not hurting that reputation means that any amendments to the board's legislation must be made with great care. The government has not done this with Bill C-23. Witness after witness at the standing committee poked holes in the government's arguments concerning C-23 and from that committee I come with the amendments that I am proposing today.
I would like to explain and defend the motions before you, Mr. Speaker, regarding Bill C-23. Motion No. 1 deals with international power lines. This group of amendments would accomplish several things. First, it would eliminate the potential for most kinds of political interference by the cabinet in the regulation of electric-

Government Orders
ity and also in matters that rightly belong under the jurisdiction of the non-partisan National Energy Board.
As you know, right now, when the board receives an application for a power line application, it automatically holds a public hearing. But that will no longer be the case. Under Bill C-23 the board will have to ask the federal cabinet for permission to hold that hearing. Mr. Speaker, we disagree with that kind of interference which the government could use to further its own political agenda at the expense of the national interest. This motion would eliminate that by giving the board the power to call a hearing.
Also, with this amendment the National Energy Board would do a better job of protecting the environment from the effects of electrical production and export. It would do this by assigning to FEARO, the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, the task of helping to assess an application to the National Energy Board for environmental effects. It would do so in the context of providing a second opinion for the NEB to consider.
As it stands now, the environmental team at the board look at the applications for environmental effects. We feel that the House of Commons should be able to call on the Minister of the Environment to account for what the government is doing to safeguard the environment, and this amendment will allow the House of Commons to do that.
Bill C-23, as it is presently worded, allows the Governor in Council certain unwarranted powers. These powers include deciding whether there will be a hearing on electricity export or power line projects, setting the criteria for whether the National Energy Board recommends a hearing and deciding what the NEB will examine at the hearing.
At the Standing Committee hearings we heard mainly negative comments on these sections which give a good measure of power to a political body, the federal cabinet. From Nova Scotia Power we heard:
These provisions interject too much uncertainty into the process
and could serve to discourage exports.
New Brunswick Power said that through Bill C-23 the government is:
- transferring a jurisdiction away from an independent and impartial National Energy Board, according to well-defined legal rules, and giving it to the cabinet to be exercised according to no rules whatsoever.
We agree with what New Brunswick Power has said because we feel that the decision as to whether that public inquiry should be held should be the decision of the National Energy Board and not the cabinet.
I would, in fact, suggest that the government take the wise advice of the Quebec Cree who said: "Bill C-23 must be completely rewritten". The Cree of Quebec are veiy concerned about the prospect for public hearings if Bill C-23 passes, and they are concerned with good reason.
At this point I would like to refer to a statement by one of the government members of our committee who expressed his confidence in the bill. He said:
If I thought that (the) opportunity (for hearings) was not there, for
anyone in Canada, I would be the first one to demand changes.
I shall attempt to prove to you today, Mr. Speaker, that that opportunity will likely not be there. I hope that afterwards the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Energy will honour his word and support this motion.
I would like to begin by taking a moment to compare the National Energy Board to the Federal Court of Canada. The Federal Court has greater powers than the National Energy Board and its rulings are binding. The court's advice to the cabinet is open to the public as the National Energy Board's advice to the government would be in the case of an export of electricity or power line application. The public, including groups like the Quebec Cree, has a chance to go before the court and make its case.
In a recent case the Cree went before the court to demand hearings on the James Bay hydro project. Despite a court precedent against them regarding a Saskatchewan dam project, despite the fact that everything was made public, the government still refused, until this fall, to allow a public hearing on James Bay. Even the way the government arranged the hearing was objectionable, for it violated both the spirit and the word of the 1975 James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.
This agreement requires that the Cree be involved in any discussions on the James Bay project including those leading to an environmental review. Talks were held between Ottawa and Quebec but they excluded the Cree. After months of foot dragging and after being dragged through the courts, the federal government probably feared it would face the embarrassment of being ordered by the court to call a hearing so at the last
December 11, 1989

minute it agreed to a joint public hearing with the province of Quebec.
If this bill passes as it is, it is going to be very difficult every time for the National Energy Board to convince the cabinet to allow a public hearing. We can only look at other examples in the government's record. As stated earlier, in the case of the Saskatchewan dam project the Minister of the Environment was shown to have failed to implement his own guidelines. If we take the decision to shut down or cut back on VIA Rail we find that no public hearings on environmental effects on the decisions were held, let alone hearings on economic or social effects.
The government just decided to shut down or cut back parts of VIA Rail. It made that decision without any public discussion, with no concern whatsoever as to how this decision would affect the people of Canada. If we look at the record of the government we can easily see why the Cree would be concerned about public hearings.
I know that my time is about up. I have further arguments to make on other amendments which I will put forward later. I want to conclude my remarks on the first motion by saying that Bill C-23 gives too much power to the cabinet. We are proposing this amendment so that the National Energy Board, not the cabinet, will decide if a public enquiry is necessary.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak on the first group of amendments to Bill C-23, an Act to amend the National Energy Board Act. My colleague from Malpeque would know that my hon. friend from Edmonton East, who is our energy critic, has done a considerable amount of work on this legislation. I know he brings considerable expertise to this House and to this party, being the first New Democrat elected to this House from the great Province of Alberta.
In committee a great deal of work was done in studying this legislation and many of the concerns were raised by my colleague, and we rise here today to support the amendments that are being brought forward by the hon. member from Malpeque. In fact, if I am not mistaken, most of these amendments were presented in the committee in its legislative review of the bill. Unfortunately, the government refused to accept them and we are here
Government Orders
today in one final effort to try to improve this legislation. We hope that with our convincing arguments we will be able to have the government support our view with regard to the changes that are required to this legislation.
Let us take a look at the general problem we have with Bill C-23. In our view it undermines the National Energy Board, politicizes the decisions, makes the exports of a strategic resource easier, public hearings will become more rare, and environmental concerns, already given short shrift by this government, will receive even less attention in the future.
One of the principal concerns we have with this bill is that the final decision on whether or not a public hearing is held on the construction of a power line or the export of electricity is made by the cabinet and not the National Energy Board. With the passage of Bill C-23, these decisions would be much more likely to be made on narrow political grounds. We know the reasons we have argued in this House for independent bodies. We argue for those to make sure that, as much as possible, the decisions that are made are made in the best interests of that particular sphere and in this country, not just for cheap political gains as has all too often become the case with the government opposite.
During second reading, my colleague from Edmonton East pointed out how this could easily result in the national interest being poorly protected and in the interest of a small province being unfairly trampled by a cabinet trying to please a large province, something we all know about from the federal election.
We pointed out that the authority of the National Energy Board itself could be seriously undermined if cabinet decided to override a recommendation by the NEB merely for political reasons. We also pointed out that under the changes in this bill the National Energy Board will routinely approve applications for power lines and electricity exports. As a result, in the vast majority of cases public hearings will not be held.
Well, what have we proposed? We proposed a system of licensing power lines and electricity exports that had at its core the notion of prudence. The hon. member from Edmonton East is a man of great prudence and he

December 11, 1989
Government Orders
considered this strongly when he was making these suggestions in committee.
For example, we are hearing now that the Government of Ontario is speaking of future electricity shortages although some people are in fact suggesting that this is mere manipulation by the Liberal government in Ontario, in effect, to implement what would appear to be a shoddy electrical generation procedure and policy already in place and, of course, to whip up support for future nuclear projects.
We heard evidence from the province of Quebec before the energy committee the other day that hydro reservoirs are much lower than normal. We are hearing from climatologists that global warming will likely change weather patterns and that this could affect rainfall and the viability of certain hydroelectric facilities. We are hearing further from Canadians all across this country, on television and in the newspapers, that Canadians are deeply concerned about the environment and they want public officials, government, to take real action and not just spout rhetoric.
I have no doubt that south of the border demand for electricity will increase in the future, partly because the pollution it causes is emitted mainly where electricity is produced rather than where it is used. I think that is an important point to remember. Our approach in dealing with this increasingly strategic Canadian resource is to be prudent. I come from the province of British Columbia where electricity is considered a resource by the provincial government and one that we must take pains to ensure that we develop properly in environmentally sound ways. The key is to be prudent.
We believe that the Governor in Council, the cabinet, should act not as an accelerator for the National Energy Board but as a brake of last resort. That is why my colleague proposed in committee that if the NEB refused a proposal to build a power line or to export electricity that that would be the end of it, the cabinet could not overrule a refusal by the NEB. On the other hand, if the NEB accepted such a proposal the cabinet could still review and overturn the NEB decision. This would have the effect of protecting the national interest by having a double check on electricity projects and exports.
Let us take a look at some of the proposals presented by the Liberals. The amendments proposed in this package do not go that far, but they do proceed in the right direction. These amendments would have the effect of helping to protect the independence of the NEB and we support that. Protecting the NEB's independence may not be the main aim of the amendments but that is the effect that they would have.
We believe that the National Energy Board should be able to make the decision on its own, without interference from the cabinet, about which power projects should receive close environmental scrutiny, and in the case of these amendments, by the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office. We learned just last week that, in fact, legislation on a legislative environmental assessment review process has yet to even make its way to cabinet ministers or into the cabinet. That gives rise to concern among many people about, again, the ongoing rhetoric from the government and no real action being taken.
We also believe that the environmental consequences of public policy must be considered much more fully than is currently the case. This is especially true for energy policy. More and more Canadians recognize the environmental consequences of energy consumption; flooding valleys when hydro dams are built, trying to manage nuclear waste, adding to the greenhouse effect-you name it. Canadians are more and more concerned about the environmental consequences of energy generation.
When it comes to power lines, there is great concern on Vancouver Island over this matter. Scientists from either side are lining up to present their arguments as to the impact and effect on not only the health of all of us but the health, in many cases, of farm animals.
There is an argument to be made that the role of the NEB and other regulatory bodies should include environmental reviews as part of their mandate. This bill goes some way toward that but we need a great deal more impact when it comes to the legislative environmental process that has been promised by this government.
We are looking forward to the debate on this bill. I know my colleague from Edmonton East has done a considerable amount of work on this. We will be supporting the amendments as proposed by the hon. member from Malpeque and I hope the government will listen
December 11, 1989

today so that we can ensure that we get better legislation out of this proposal.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the fine intervention by my colleague from Malpeque and the arguments that she made in connection with the importance of public hearings. Before I do that, however, I would like to point out that this bill is another measure down the slippery road that we have undertaken by way of the free trade agreement.
I would like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, particularly to Division III and section 119.5 which commits ourselves and forces the National Energy Board to commit itself to the overall energy agreement with the United States which we opposed in the last election and which we continue to consider to be detrimental to our national interest.
For that reason alone, we must rise in this House and oppose it because we do not think that the long-term interest of Canada is served by taking us down this slippery road in connection with our long-term energy interest because of the commitment that was made, unfortunately, under the free trade agreement which in the last election, of course, we opposed.
Bill C-23 is another example of a bill prepared without sustainable development and the long term in mind. Despite the proclamations, commitments and statements that the Prime Minister of Canada makes abroad, despite the commitments that the Environment Minister makes in his speeches at the UN and when he appears before the Environment Committee, here we have a bill that restricts even further the powers of an institution that has served Canada well, namely the National Energy Board, and says that we will let cabinets of the future make certain decisions, but you as a board should have less and less power.
What does that mean? We all know that cabinets have, by virtue of their political nature, so to speak, short-term sights. They can think at best, under the best of circumstances, of the next election. To think beyond that requires a supernatural effort, let alone thinking of the next generation and generations after. By that I mean the long term, 50, 60, 100 years from now. That is why the National Energy Board was formed and that is why a
Government Orders
stronger National Energy Board is necessary and not a weaker one.
Here we have, in the name, allegedly, of sustainable development as interpreted by the Progressive Conservative government, a bill coming into the House which weakens instead of strengthening the National Energy Board. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, does that make sense to you? That is one reason alone to oppose it in addition to the other one I gave you a moment earlier, namely, Division III, the section related to the free trade agreement.
The importance of holding public hearings, and not at the whim of cabinet, has been eloquently described and underlined by the member for Malpeque. Of course we all agree with her. We know that that should not be a political decision of the day. It should be an established practice because we know the importance of seeking public consultation.
I cannot for the life of me understand, considering the commitments that the Progressive Conservative Party made in the election of 1984, proclaiming its great belief in consultation with the people, that the government would come into the House with this bill today and practise exactly the opposite, as it does in Bill C-23. It is inconceivable, it runs counter to all the commitments made in public at election time by the Progressive Conservative Party.
If anything, the National Energy Board should retain that function. It should not be made a decision of cabinet because we know what the political pitfalls are of that process. If anything, the powers of the National Energy Board to hold public hearings should be strengthened.
But what is worrisome about the long-term implications of this bill is the mindset in the political philosophy behind it because it reinforces the destiny of Canada as a provider of energy for export purposes. It reinforces the notion that Canada's future is to be more and more a hewer of wood and a drawer of water with this increased dependence of our well being on the export of our natural resources instead of using our natural resources as a tool to attract investment to Canada and to create jobs at home rather than creating jobs abroad.
That notion has not penetrated the foggy collective minds of this cabinet. Probably they do not have one, or if they do it is so thick that they have not yet understood that energy means jobs and that if you insist on exporting energy and expanding those energies, you export jobs. Is that not elementary? We are facing a profound malaise

December 11, 1989
Government Orders
in the thoughts of this government as to what constitutes the long-term interest of Canadians when it comes to energy.
The fourth disturbing aspect in Bill C-23 is the total absence of any reference to the importance of renewable sources of energy as a mandate that the National Energy Board should not only make its own but also strengthen and expand. Obviously, one day we are going to run out of our non-renewable sources of energy. At least when it comes to oil, the horizons are already visible. With natural gas, perhaps they are beyond the horizon, we do not know. The same may be said of coal. But in the very long term we cannot hope and expect that these resources will remain forever available. They will run out.
Therefore, when you discuss a bill that relates to the National Energy Board, it is necessary to introduce as a responsibility the concept and the importance of giving renewable sources of energy the place that they deserve.
It is astonishing to learn from the minutes of the proceedings in committee that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources would say that the board may be perceived to be in an apparent conflict of interest situation and that "the board would literally be deciding how much more work it makes for itself", when it comes to the question of public hearings. I can hardly believe that a minister of the Crown would interpret the role of one of the major agencies under his or her jurisdiction in that manner, as an agency whose main task would be one of deciding how much more work it can create.
Obviously, if that is the opinion that the Minister of Energy has of the government's own National Energy Board, then a change is necessary at the top, namely a change with the minister himself.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-23 would seek to amend the National Energy Board Act if you take the bill literally at face value from its cover. That it is what it proclaims on the cover sheet.
If you read the bill in the form we have it to date, without the amendments that are being proposed, you will find that a more apt characterization of what Bill C-23 does is to gut the National Energy Board Act. So
that is why I rise in support of the first group of amendments put forward by my colleague for Malpeque.
If you were to listen to the rhetoric of this government, one of the themes that comes through again and again, whether you are talking about VIA Rail, Canada Post, or so many other Crown agencies, is that this government because of its basic purity of ideology maintains an arm's length relationship. That has been the message again and again. This government has repeatedly sent out the signal that its philosophy or way of operating is to give agencies statutory authority and let them operate within that authority to make decisions within their mandated area.
What is happening here in so far as the National Energy Board is concerned is that we have an agency with adequate statutory authority and broad powers that has ensured over the years that Canadians, both individually and in groups, can automatically through the vehicle of public hearing have their say whenever there is a contemplation to export electricity out of this country. Under statute there is a provision that there be a public hearing by the NEB.
Mr. Speaker, does it not make you back up and wonder what is behind the effort here to restrict the National Energy Board's ability to proceed with a public inquiry? As I pointed out, it flies in the face of the way in which this government has been operating on Canada Post and VIA Rail, just to use two examples.
In this case the government is going against the strain. It is going in the opposite direction. It is not arm's length-it is fingertip. The government wants to keep the question of electricity exports right at its fingertips. What does it provide in its unamended legislation? It provides that the cabinet will decide as to whether or not there will be a public inquiry.
I direct you to an example, Mr. Speaker. We all know how American Express got into this country in the way it did. We all know it was not as a result of any public inquiry. We all know that it was as a result of an order in council, a cabinet decision, made either on election day or hours before election day.


I submit to you, Sir, that the timing of that decision was no accident, that American Express' entry into Canada, and the fact that the decision was made on election day or thereabouts, was a direct trade-off between American Express' support for the government's position on free trade and American Express' objective of getting involved in the Canadian financial community.
By example that is my concern with this piece of legislation and that particular provision in it. It is that once again government gives to itself the vehicle, the wherewithal to do a political trade-off. It is not the NEB that will decide whether an inquiry is needed. Under this legislation the NEB will have to go to cabinet and ask it to make the decision.
Compare that procedure with what happens with the competition bureau, which is provided for in legislation introduced, sponsored by and passed by the current government. At the competition bureau the director of competition, up until recently Mr. Cal Goldman, makes the decision. He makes the determination as to whether or not there will be an inquiry-in the words of the act, a tribunal. It is left in that case to the judgment of a senior bureaucrat. I have difficulty with that because the discretion is left in the hands of one person. I raise it here in terms of an example to draw a contrast for you, Sir.
In the one case government has deemed that something as important as the merger of Canadian Airlines and Wardair, or the merger of Imperial and Texaco, to use a recent example and a very current one in the case of Imperial and Texaco, is to be left to the decision of one man, a bureaucrat. But on the question of exporting electricity, energy from this country is taken out of the hands of the National Energy Board which has administered it very competently over the years, and it is now put into political hands. I submit that it is being done for a very direct reason.
I come back to what my colleague from Davenport was saying when he spoke a few moments ago. He was asking whether this government has a mind or whether it has a collective mind. I would say to him: "Yes, this government has a mind all right."


Mr. Hockin:: You guys are split all over the place.
Government Orders


Roger Simmons: I am looking forward to the participation of the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism in this debate. It sounds like he has something on his mind on this issue. We have been here waiting. There have been three or four Liberal members in a row, together with my colleague from the NDP, four or five speakers all together from this side of the House. As you know, Mr. Speaker, normally with your renowned reputation for fairness you would have one from each side of the House stand. Here we have had five from the same side of the House. The reason is that the Minister wants to interrupt what I have to say. I do not mind. I rather enjoy his interjections, they are so few and far between, and so easy to understand at the same time. If he wants to speak I will yield the floor now because I am sure he has some concerns as well about the issue that I have raised here.
I was about to say before the minister made his speech that my friend from Davenport wondered whether this crowd has a mind. I say to him: "Yes, they have a mind, and they have a mindset, too." The mindset has to do with subservience to the American agenda at all times. I gave the example of American Express, and now I give the example of changes in the National Energy Board Act. What is at the bottom of this change that I have been talking about is that the government is looking for a guarantee. The government wants to have it all completely within its power, no ifs, ands or buts. It does not leave it up to bureaucrats, or to the National Energy Board, or to any agency in this case. The government sitting around that table wants to be able to deliver the political plums. It wants to ensure that no independent bureaucrat, no arm's length board gets in the way of exporting electricity to its American friends.
There is something drastically wrong with the mindset of this government when it is so preoccupied at all times with dancing to the American tune, serving the American agenda at all times, instead of asking once in a while: "How can we better serve the people of Canada?"
I intend to support the amendment put down so ably by my colleague from Malpeque because, if carried, it will help to ensure that there will not be undue political interference in the question of decisions about electricity exports from here to the United States.

December 11, 1989
Government Orders



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Brant-National Defence; the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing-Health; and the hon. member for Burnaby-Human Rights.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-23, an Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and to repeal certain enactments in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and the motion of Ms. Callbeck.
Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the amendment put forward by my colleague from Malpeque. The issue is the fact that the legislation as it now stands leaves a tremendous amount of not only power in the hands of cabinet itself but, as my colleague so ably pointed out a few minutes ago, power in the hands of one or two individuals who will be advising cabinet on these issues.
My colleague from Malpeque spoke very eloquently about the impact that this bill would have on the environment. I want to expand on that very briefly and speak about the environment in which we live in close proximity in many cases to high voltage transmission lines. I have a proposed line across the constituency of Lambton-Middlesex. I say "proposed" line because we already have two lines at the present time. They are
230,000	volt lines. One of them will be raised to 550,000 volts.
Until recently, until some of the citizens started to complain, they were going to take these right through the heart of three small villages and in close proximity to a fourth. Yet I do not see any guidelines in this legislation whereby cabinet would be directed to keep away from the built-up areas. There are enough questions at the present time to indicate that these transmission lines do impact on human health. In fact, if you are wearing a pacemaker you do not dare go anywhere close to a high voltage transmission line or else your pacemaker will act up and you could have very serious health problems resulting immediately.
I think we have to stop and examine the type of power we are leaving in the hands of the cabinet when there are no guidelines established at the present time regarding how close these lines can be to built-up areas. There are some areas in the United States where they make them stay back approximately 1,700 feet from a built-up area. In Russia it is 2,300 feet.
Yet when we talk about this here in Canada they say there is no proof that these lines do have an impact on human health. There is no proof that they do not have an impact on it either.
I think it is foolhardy for us to go through with a piece of legislation that does not recognize that there is an area here that must be studied further as to the impact on what it does to an individual. It is well documented as to what it will do to a dairy herd that is pasturing under one of these high voltage transmission lines, or a milking herd that is living in a yard or a bam close by. There are problems with conception in those herds. There are problems with the milking in that the quantity of milk produced drops dramatically.
In my constituency I have an individual who has a dog kennel close by one of these lines. He could not understand why the dogs killed their pups at birth if they did conceive. A lot of the dogs would not conceive until they took them a few kilometres away to another location. If there are impacts on the health of animals living in close proximity, then what is it going to do to humans who live close by?
There is a lot of suspicion at the present time that this may cause cancer, particularly to young people. I also have to point out that a young person in close proximity to one of these 230,000 volt transmission lines is already being treated for that dreaded disease at the present time.
We do not know enough about the electromagnetic fields that are created by these transmission lines. I suggest that it is not acceptable to Canadians to place the health of our citizens at risk in order to export energy to another country. It is fundamentally wrong to give such powers to cabinet to circumvent hearings whereby people are allowed to speak. It is morally wrong to allow any utility to create an environment that is dangerous to
December 11, 1989

public health for the sake of exporting power to another country and placing the health of our citizens at risk.
I suggest that to allow cabinet to bypass public hearings would deprive Canadians of the chance to voice their concerns they may have about the serious health consequences I spoke about. Before any decision like this is left to cabinet there have to be guidelines drafted based on information now available. If it is not available in Canada, then let us look at the records and the measures being used in other countries. We need guidelines that place the health of the citizens of this nation first and foremost.
I suggest that these guidelines should not be drafted by the utility companies but by known experts in the field who have watched the development of these transmission lines, not only in this nation but in the nation to the south of us, and Russia. This must be done recognizing that in many cases the utility companies are more interested in the export of power and the profits generated thereby than in the health of those who are living close by.
I would ask this House to support the amendment put forward by the member from Malpeque. I do so because of the unknowns that are facing us here and the tremendous amount of power that is to be left in the hands of cabinet to bypass these public hearings that give our citizens a chance to voice their concerns.
I recently attended a meeting in my constituency where one of these high voltage transmission lines was being discussed. There was a tremendous depth of fear there that was based on the best information available. The utility company downplayed it and tried to assure the people in attendance that there really was no problem. If there was a problem, it would tell them about it. The people did not accept that, and I do not accept it either. If that is the kind of information that is going to be available to the cabinet when it makes a decision to bypass the public hearings, then we as Canadian citizens deserve better. It is for that reason that I wholeheartedly support the amendment of my colleague from Malpeque.
Government Orders


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on the first grouping?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9.
The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the 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.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to the appropriate Standing Order, the recorded division shall stand deferred.
Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 10 which deal with interprovincial power lines are in order, as I said earlier, and will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 6 will apply to Motions Nos. 7, 8 and 10.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Motion No. 6.
That Bill C-23 be amended in Clause 23 by striking out lines 22
and 23 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"respect of which a designation is made under section 58.4."
Motion No. 7.
That Bill C-23 be amended in Clause 23 by striking out lines 10
and 11 at page 19 and substituting the following therefor:
"provincial power line in respect of which a designation is made
under section 58.4."
Motion No. 8.
That Bill C-23 be amended in Clause 23 by striking out lines 14 and
15 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor:

Government Orders
"respect ofwhich a designation is made under section 58.4 as they apply in".
Motion No. 10.
That Bill C-23 be amended in Clause 23 by striking out lines 1 to
14 at page 21 and substituting the following therefor:
"58.4(1) The Board may designate an interprovincial power line as an interprovincial power line that is to be constructed and operated under and in accordance with a certificate issued under section 58.16.
(2) No person shall construct or operate any section or part of an interprovincial power line in respect ofwhich a designation is made under subsection (1)".
She said: Mr. Speaker, this motion contains amendments which follow the ones in the previous motion. They deal basically with the same issues-cabinet powers, public hearings and the reputation of the National Energy Board. They also deal with the subject of interprovincial power lines.
I urge this House to adopt the motion for the same reasons that I stated earlier. It would eliminate the potential for unhelpful and potentially very harmful political interference by the federal cabinet.
It would do this by leaving the decision as to whether a public hearing on an application to the National Energy Board would be held not up to the cabinet but up to the board. I think the reasons stated during debate on the previous motion are well understood and need only summarizing here.
The fact is that when trusted to decide in the national interest in similar situations in the past the federal cabinet decided rather in its own political interest. We saw this with the Rafferty Dam in Saskatchewan, with James Bay, with VIA, and I suspect that we will see it under Bill C-23, unless these amendments are adopted.
We heard from a lot of witnesses before the legislative committee on Bill C-23. Some of them indicated that they feel this bill will not accomplish the goal of deregulation, but may in fact do just the opposite. That is to say that it may cause more headaches for the electric utilities than it solves.
With such a conflict between what government claims to be the purpose of the bill and what industry says it will accomplish, the real reason behind Bill C-23 becomes clear. That reason is simply to give the cabinet the power to control Canada's electricity trade to a far greater extent than it does today, and certainly more than is in the national interest.
Some of the most interesting testimony that we heard on Bill C-23 came from the minister himself. At our committee the minister gave a somewhat incredible explanation as to why cabinet wants more power over the National Energy Board. The minister says that the board may be perceived to be in an apparent conflict-of-interest situation because: "The board would literally be deciding how much more work it makes for itself".
As you know, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-23 will mean that the board will have decide whether to recommend to cabinet that an application before it go to a public inquiry, or whether adequate regulation is already in place.
I would like to draw to the attention of the minister the National Energy Board's reasons for a decision regarding Trans Mountain Pipeline of July, 1988. The length of this pipeline was such that the board did not have to hold a hearing. In its report the NEB decided to hold a public hearing on the application, thereby making more work for itself.
The government does not seem to have any problems with the NEB's powers on its potential for a conflict of interest when it comes to pipelines. For what reason should the government be taking this power away from the board and giving it to the cabinet when it comes to electricity exports and international power lines? I suggest that it is a purely political one. Certainly, the witnesses whom we had before the legislative committee hinted at this.
The witnesses we have heard have pretty well all expressed nothing but the highest faith in the board and its procedures, which means that they believe not only in the people who make up this board who are there now but in the whole process. Take for example the minister's parliamentary secretary who said he had full faith in the National Energy Board, in the guidelines and in the people who work within the board.
He also said he was certain that if they feel any of the guidelines are not met, any public hearings or input required will be there. This seems to contradict what the minister has said about the board not wanting to make more work for itself. I certainly have to agree with the comments of the parliamentary secretary as I have just quoted him. It seems that practically every witness that we had before this committee agreed.
December 11, 1989

The Quebec Cree have not had that much faith in the NEB, but they have even less faith in the federal cabinet. Really who can blame them?
New Brunswick Power is more complimentary and well represents the evidence given before the committee. I want to quote what it had to say: "The point is that after 30 years of operation the National Energy Board has not acted in a rogue way. It has acted in a highly respectable way. Its decisions have been a credit to the Government of Canada".
It seems that the only person who doubts the National Energy Board's character is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He has more faith, understandably, in his own cabinet whose opinions he knows and can count on. But not so the Cree who say: "We need an independent body which is concerned about the public, not a party that has gotten into power, not Progressive Conservatives, NDP or Liberals". I could not agree more.
Also in agreement with this last point is the advisory committee of the energy options report that this government set up in 1987. The committee states in its report:
It is of paramount importance that the NEB be seen as a
non-political institution if it is to ensure that its messages to
Canadians are effective and credible.
We agree. Therefore we are concerned that a board that gets overruled on major decisions often enough by cabinet may in time lose some of its credibility.
Just last month the committee's former chairman, Tom Kierans, told our committee that the board ought to be free to inquire into something and the inquiry ought to be public. He said that the only instance in which the cabinet should intervene is at the end of the process, after the NEB makes its final decision. Again, this is exactly our position. That is why we are proposing this motion.
Let me add one last piece of testimony on this point. It comes from the legal counsel to the Maritime Electric of Charlottetown who stated: "The NEB ought to be given authority to designate exports rather than authority only to recommend designation."
The evidence on this point is clear and it points in the direction of giving the National Energy Board the power to regulate in Canada's national interest. I have more arguments to make regarding Bill C-23 and these deal
Government Orders
with the important issues of free trade, electricity, the effects of energy development on the environment.
I will conclude my remarks on Motion No. 2. I certainly call on members of the House to act in the national interest by letting the National Energy Board act in the national interest and I would urge members to adopt the motion now before the House.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few brief comments on the second grouping of amendments to Bill C-23 which is before the House today. The member for Burin-St. George's commented about the concerns that we have on this side, and I trust and hope that members opposite also have, about the politicization of the National Energy Board. In fact, I think the government has made a mistake in the title of the bill. It should more accurately read, "an act to gut the National Energy Board and to unduly politicize the export of electricity from Canada" because for all intents and purposes that is exactly what Bill C-23 is doing in this legislation that we are debating
We are beginning to see the results of this government's record of making decisions within cabinet, behind the curtains, behind closed doors where the public does not have an opportunity to participate, to discuss, or to share in those decisions. The decision regarding VIA Rail has already been mentioned today, the complete about face by the government from its previous position when the Liberals were cutting VIA Rail. We now have the example of the Conservatives in office cutting VIA Rail with no public hearings or any other provisions. If the Canadian public asks for anything when government is making decisions on such critical issues as hydroelectric lines or the export of power, it is that those decisions are made with ample opportunity for public input. In many cases, all we ask for is a chance to make our comments then, fair enough, a decision has to be made at some point.
Bill C-23, which we are debating today, goes in completely the opposite direction of the kind of openness that all members of this House have been calling for, at least certainly those on this side of the chamber. I know that my colleague, the member for Edmonton East, raised these matters in committee in the legislative review of this bill. We are rising here today in support of the Liberal amendments because we think they will help move this legislation in the right direction. I certainly call

Government Orders
on the government members also to support this very important amendment.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to speak to these motions, especially the motions proposed by my colleague for Malpeque.
Bill C-23 is really a wolf in sheep's clothing or vice versa. I am very worried about some of the things that are being proposed today. One of them is the politicizing of the decisions on our future energy needs and of the power lines. In effect, this bill states that the National Energy Board can now recommend a public hearing and the cabinet will decide whether they will agree or disagree with the National Energy Board.
A comment that I have heard is that of course the cabinet is always going to act in the highest regard because there is always public pressure. I hasten to point out to some members opposite that that is not always the case with this cabinet, sometimes, there are other times when political expediency certainly plays a very large role in their decisions. I will bring to light something that came up just recently, and that was a request by the Auditor General that the cabinet release documents concerning their travel expenditures. The cabinet decided not to release these documents because it was not necessary, or for whatever reason they had, but I do not believe this decision is in the public interest. It would be far more in the public interest to have the details released.
What happens if the National Energy Board decides that there should be a public hearing because the provinces concerned have not held the proper hearings and the cabinet decides not to? There is nothing preventing the cabinet from deciding against a public hearing.
Future energy needs and the whole reason for the National Energy Board would be undone. Because cabinet can overrule any decision, why even bother with a National Energy Board, if that is the case? I believe that the future energy needs of our country have to be safeguarded. They must be safeguarded. One must not play lightly with some of the best resources that we have here in our country, and that is our energy.
With these amendments the National Energy Board would have the power to ask for a hearing and I believe it should have this power. Therefore, I support the amendments of my colleague.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on the second grouping?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will be voting on Motion No. 6 and that vote will apply to Motions Nos. 7, 8 and 10. The question is on Motion No. 6.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the 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.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The recorded division shall stand deferred.
Motions Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 are in order and will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 11 will apply to the other motions.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Motion No. 11.
That Bill C-23 be amended in Clause 34 by striking out lines 5 to
8 at page 26 and substituting the following therefor:
"119.03(1) Except where the Board considers that an exportation of electricity is an exportation that is subject to the issuance of a licence under section 119.08, the Board, following an assessment by the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, shall, on application to it and".
Motion No. 12.
That Bill C-23 be amended in Clause 34 by striking out lines 26
and 27 at page 26 and substituting the following therefor:
" mine whether the exportation of the electricity should be subject to the issuance of a licence under section 119.08."
Motion No. 13.
That Bill C-23 be amended in Clause 34
December 11, 1989

(a)	by striking out lines 28 to 41 at page 26 and substituting the following therefor:
"119.06(1) Where it appears to the Board that it is necessary to complement any measure taken in respect of an exportation of electricity by the governments of the provinces where the electricity is generated, or to take any measure that should have been taken by such governments, the Board may decide that the exportation of the electricity shall be subject to the issuance of a licence under section 119.08.
(2) In determining whether the exportation of the electricity should be subject to the issuance of a licence under section 119.08, the Board shall"; and
(b)	by striking out lines 23 and 24 at page 27 and substituting the following therefor:
"(d) the effect of the exportation of electricity on the energy supply in Canada; and
(e) the effect of exportation of electricity in regard to Article 904 of the Agreement."
Motion No. 14.
That Bill C-23 be amended in Clause 34 by striking out lines 26 to 32 at page 27 and substituting the following therefor:
"may make orders revoking any permit issued in respect of the exportation of electricity."
Motion No. 15.
That Bill C-23 be amended in Clause 34 by striking out lines 3 to 6 at page 28 and substituting the following therefor:
"emor in Council and following an assessment by the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, issue a licence for the exportation of electricity."
Motion No. 16.
That Bill C-23 be amended in Clause 34 by striking out lines 35 to 42 at page 29.
She said: Mr. Speaker, these motions deal with many important issues raised by Bill C-23. They include free trade, the environment, and the whole question about how clear this legislation could be.
The last point is certainly important because Parliament has an obligation to make its laws as clear as possible so that misunderstandings do not arise.
First, the issue of free trade. The motion before the House would make Canada's electricity exports to the U.S. with regard to Article 904 of the free trade agreement an explicit concern of the National Energy Board. As the House knows, Canada exports a great deal of electricity to the United States, but with the free trade
Government Orders
agreement Canada has to guarantee the Americans an opportunity to buy these exports in the future.
Generally speaking, if Canada is forced to cut back on exports for some reason, we have to guarantee the United States the chance to bid on the same proportion of exports we sent them during the previous three years. The other side of the arrangement is that we can only cut the supply to the Americans if we do the same to Canadians. Therefore, we along with other groups, feel that it is a good idea that the National Energy Board be given responsibility for making sure that Canada does not bite off more than it can chew. That is, we want to ensure that Canada can sustain its level of exports for some time so that Article 904 of the free trade agreement does not come crashing down on us.
The Council of Canadians has certainly supported this idea. It recommended to our standing committee the widening of the mandate of the NEB to take into account the new situation under the free trade agreement with the proportionality clause. The government may scoff at the advice of the Council of Canadians, which opposed the trade deal during the election last year, but the same argument was also made by the advisory committee to the Energy Options Report which this government set up in 1987. This report advocates a market based approach on most energy matters, but on one issue they are clearly in favour of involvement by the NEB, and that one issue is free trade.
The committees say in the Energy Options Report that with free trade it becomes even more important to keep a vigilant watch over export levels to ensure that they do not exceed long-term sustainable proportions. That is exactly what this motion will accomplish.
The government has said that there are issues and matters today which were not foreseeable when the NEB act was originally passed in 1959. Surely concern about the environment is one of those issues, and some duplication of provincial regulations may be a second. But there can be no doubt that a major new development is the free trade agreement which will be colouring Canada's energy policy for many years to come.
What happens when one province's exports of electricity significantly tilt the balance for all of Canada? All of Canada will have the responsibility of meeting our export requirements under Section 904 of the free trade agree-

December 11, 1989
Government Orders
ment. With responsibility come certain rights. In this instance, all of Canada through the National Energy Board should have a right to examine this country's energy exposure to the United States.
This motion will also ensure that the National Energy Board considers how an export affects Canada's energy supply position. The government says that the question of surplus is not as important today as it was back in 1959 when Prime Minister Diefenbaker said the NEB was supposed to ensure that exports were: "surplus to the needs of the Canadian economy in this and foreseeable generations in order to ensure for Canadians an adequate supply of the natural resources which are the heritage of this country-"
We are told that provincial utilities will only export when they are in a surplus position. But will this always be the case? A recent article in The Globe and Mail reports that demand is threatening to outstrip supply for the first time in Hydro Quebec's history. The crunch is the result of low water levels in the James Bay area and also labour difficulties at Hydro Quebec. Hydro Quebec says that no one could have foreseen today's climate conditions. But that is not the point. The point is that if utilities are not going to plan in case of shortages, someone should. We think that someone should be the National Energy Board.
This motion also contains an amendment that aims to further protect the environment from the effects of electricity projects. The goal here is to allow a preliminary study of an application that is presented to the NEB. There would be a preliminary study Office, and that study would help the National Energy Board decide whether to hold a full public hearing on the application. FEARO would report its decision to the National Energy Board and they would make that recommendation public. The advantages of this is that FEARO is an independent body. It is free from political interference. The Minister of the Environment cannot tell it what to do. The minister, however, must be responsible to Parliament for FEARO's work and can be questioned on such matters in the House.
For these many reasons, I recommend that the House adopt this motion. This motion also deals with some small matters which were raised in committee. Some confusion exists as to whether the National Energy Board can act in the public interest where the province being examined takes no action to be complemented by
the National Energy Board. The original bill said that the board could complement measures taken by the provinces of regulating electricity, but what happens when provinces take no action of their own? As Maritime Electric has stated, you cannot complement measures-add to something-if they have not been taken in the first place. So, if no provincial measures get taken, there will be no measures for the National Energy Board to complement.
While the government amended the bill in committee to take out the words "complement measures", we would still like to amend it in this way, because for one thing the wording of our amendment accomplishes several things, this technical correction being only one. In the interests of efficiency, this amendment is still being proposed.
Some confusion also exists as to which province the board ought to look at. Should it be the province where the electricity is generated or the province from which the electricity leaves Canada, or both, or even three provinces may be involved once in a while. This change means that the board can look at measures taken or not taken in whatever province it finds relevant. Again, as Maritime Electric told us, even if Parliament expresses itself clearly, differences in interpretation of legislation will occur. That means if Parliament does not express itself clearly, differences and disputes are almost certain to arise.
For all the reasons stated above, I urge the House to adopt this third motion.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I rise again to speak on the third grouping of amendments to Bill C-23, the act to gut the National Energy Board and unduly politicize electricity exports, and to make a few comments before our hour of adjournment.
We on this side of the House have already expressed concern about the independence of the National Energy Board, or how it is threatened by this legislation, because it is going to allow cabinet to overrule the NEB on energy projects and power lines. The same point has to be made in relation to electricity exports. The energy future of Canada demands that our consideration of proposals for the export of electricity continues to be characterized by impartiality and prudence. By allowing cabinet to override the NEB in order to increase exports,
December 11, 1989

this bill politicizes that process and thereby threatens the national interest.
As I mentioned earlier, my colleague for Edmonton East, our energy critic, made this point on many occasions in committee. Unfortunately the government did not see fit to adopt some of the amendments that he proposed. We rise today to support the amendments presented by the member for Malpeque. They appear to be not necessarily aimed specifically at the problem, but do happen to have the effect of helping to maintain the independence of the NEB and we support that.
My colleagues and I pointed out during debate at second reading of this bill that the government was putting in place a mechanism that would make public hearings on export proposals very rare. In fact, under this bill the granting of export permits will be routine and public hearings for the vast majority of export applications will not be held. We pointed that there was no good evidence that the existing process was overly burdensome. In fact, evidence at the committee hearings show that this was the case. We pointed out that a closed process seldom serves the public purpose well. We have heard other examples of that today, VIA Rail being one, especially when dealing with such an important strategic resource like electricity. Once again, my colleague proposed in committee that a public hearing on major export proposals be held by someone at either the provincial or the federal level. This very sensible suggestion was turned down.
The main focus of this set of amendments, the third grouping, is to allow the NEB to refer proposals to export electricity to the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office. We understand that the spirit of the Brundtland Commission demands that the effect of public policy on the environment should be considered in all sectors of government. That means all departments and all agencies of government. It means that the NEB itself will be charged with conducting the basic environmental assessments of its decisions. Bill C-23 makes some progress in that regard. Under the proposal envisioned in this amendment, FEARO, the Environmental Assessment Review Office would be used as the "environmental protector of last resort to make assessments of those export proposals the NEB feels that it cannot handle adequately itself." That sounds like an entirely
Government Orders
sensible idea and something that the prudent member for Edmonton East would recommend.
Let us take a look at how some of these amendments affect the most important free trade agreement as it now impacts between our country and the United States. My colleague, the energy critic, the member for Edmonton East, pursued this bill in some detail when it was in committee, and he offered a number of amendments. In effect, by signing the energy provisions of the free trade deal, the government has placed a boa constrictor around our neck. Under the trade deal, exports of energy to the United States will never decrease in relative terms, but will much more likely increase and increase. Article 904 of the FTA states:
Either Party may maintain or introduce a restriction-with respect to the export of an energy good-only if:
a) the restriction does not reduce the proportion of the total export shipments of a specific energy good made available to the other Party relative to the total supply of that good of the Party maintaining the restriction compared to the proportion prevailing in the most recent 36-month period -
Now that makes a lot of sense. This proportionality clause is like a ratchet that gets tighter and tighter. It is like a boa constricter, squeezing its prey and it never lets up. That is why it is so dangerous for Canada's energy future.
The point that has been missed in all of this, when it comes to electricity exports, a kilowatt hour is a kilowatt hour is a kilowatt hour. A buck is a buck is a buck. It does not matter if an export consists of a long-term firm contract or merely supplies of interruptable power, every kilowatt hour of power that we export defines the amount that we must offer the United States in following years. It will not be a one-off deal. If that amount is more than we usually send, the ratchet, that boa con-stricter will tighten. The proportion that we will have to offer the U.S. will continue to increase and we will have lost forever that degree of energy flexibility that we talked about so proudly before in this House.
We know that this government, this party delivered the free trade deal for its friends in big business. We know that they are not even proud enough to tell us where their donations were from. Members in this House have

Private Members' Business
to do that. I only expect that from those people who bought all of those ads during the election campaign.
In the meantime, the least we can do is ensure that the National Energy Board takes the ratchet effect, that boa constricter again, into account in every one of its decisions respecting electricity exports. That is prudent. It is simple common sense. It is something we hope this government will follow.


The Deputy Speaker:: In this grouping, a vote on Motion 11 will apply to Motion Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The recorded division on the motion shall stand deferred.
Pursuant to Standing Order 45.5(a), I have been requested by a representative of the chief government whip to defer the division until a later time. Accordingly, the divisions on the questions now before the House shall stand deferred until tomorrow at 3 o'clock, at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, October 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Althouse:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing measures to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act to include coverage for producers who feed their own grain to their livestock; and on the amendment of Mr. Funk:
That the motion be amended by adding immediately after the words "Western Grain Stabilization Act" the following:
'and Agricultural Stabilization Act'.
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue my speech on this motion and the record of safety net programs such as the Western Grain Stabilization Program and the Agricultural Stabilization Program.
In recent years, world grain subsidy battles, heavy debt loads and drought have combined to place Canada's grains industry under tremendous pressure. Changes in the world trade environment have led to a re-examination of the role of government support programs. Many of us from this House have joined hundreds of producers and others concerned in the agricultural industry at the minister's agri-food conference today at the Congress Centre. They are there to initiate the most thorough review of agriculture undertaken in this country for many years. Government support programs are going to be part of that review.
Programs like the Western Grain Stabilization Act and the Agriculture Stabilization Act have been doing the job that they were designed to do, protecting producers from the impact of a sudden drop in cash flow because of disruptions in markets or production costs.
The WGSA was set up in 1976 to stabilize farm incomes when grain prices dropped below a five-year average. The program has done just that. Since the 1985-86 crop year the Western Grain Stabilization Act has paid out over $3.2 billion to participants in the Prairie provinces.

A farmer who had been enrolled since the beginning of the program will have received $6 in benefit payments for every dollar of levy contributed. Over the same period the Agricultural Stabilization Act has also made substantial payments to grain and oilseed producers in eastern Canada and to producers whose products are not included under the Western Grain Stabilization Program. These programs are working but that does not mean that they cannot be improved.
Since 1984 the government has been working with producers and their organizations to make the Western Grain Stabilization Act more responsive to the needs of those producers.
In February of 1985, the Western Grain Stabilization Act was amended so that in years when a substantial pay-out was evident, interim payments would be made before the end of the crop year. This provided farmers with cash when they needed it most in time for spring seeding.
The program was further improved in 1988. Amendments were made to encourage participation, extend crop coverage and put the program on a sound financial footing. A10 per cent penalty for producers rejoining the program was removed, and the deadline for non-participating producers to join the Western Grain Stabilization Act was extended.
Nine additional crops were made eligible for payments. These included buckwheat, peas, lentils, fab-abeans, canary seed, mixed grain, sunflower and safflower seeds.
Amendments were also passed to raise levies in the joint government-producer funded program. The federal government now pays 6 per cent, instead of 3 per cent, of eligible grain sale receipts while producer levies increased from 1 per cent to 4 per cent. This combined with a write-down of $750 million of the stabilization fund deficit put the program on a sounder financial basis. Without this write-down, the future of the program was in doubt.
The 1988 amendments provided immediate benefits to producers for the 1987-88 crop year. Producers rejoining the program received about 70 per cent of the payment that a full participant with the same level of grain sales received. The payment level increased to 85 per cent for the 1988-89 crop year. Without the amendments, producers rejoining the program would have received only 30 per cent of the full payment.
Private Members' Business
The success of these improvements is in the statistics. Participation has increased 8 per cent since the latest amendments, to the highest level since the program began. It now stands at 90 per cent of eligible Wheat Board permit book holders. The total number of participating producers is over 129,000, up from 113,000 in the 1986-87 crop year, an increase of 12 per cent.
This government is willing to consider further amendments to improve safety net programs for farmers. Today, we are being asked to consider the inclusion of farm-fed grain in the Western Grain Stabilization Program.
The issue is not new. The present program provides protection to farmers based on grain sales receipts. However, it does not cover farm-fed grain. Producers who feed a large portion of the grain they grow to livestock are not included.
Since this issue and motion was first discussed in the House, I had the occasion to discuss it with a number of my farmers. Many of these people would benefit from the program if it were extended. They asked me point blank why I was not promoting and actively supporting this. I have assured them that the government is taking a very broad look at the issue. The farm sector clearly needs assistance to improve its long term financial stability.
In recent years we have relied on ad hoc government support programs such as the 1986 and 1987 Special Canadian Grains Program, which paid out $2.1 billion to producers, and the 1988 Canadian Crop Drought Assistance Program, which paid producers another $850 million. But designing a special program for each crisis situation is not the answer.
Farmers also agree that whatever we do must be consistent with international efforts to reform agricultural subsidies.
Last April in Geneva ministers from countries involved in talks under GATT agreed that the long term objective of the negotiations is to establish a fair and market oriented agricultural trading system. The short term agreement provides that current support and protection levels in the agricultural sector will not be increased during the period of the negotiations. Countries have agreed not to change policies in a manner which would further restrict access to markets.

December 11, 1989
Private Members' Business
The government is now involved in an extensive review of Canadian agricultural policies. The review was launched in the summer of 1988 and grain stabilization is part of that total review. Government representatives met with farm leaders across the country to determine options for a national stabilization program. These options were developed by Agriculture Canada's National Grains Bureau in Winnipeg and presented to a meeting of farm leaders. Discussions have continued and right now a national conference discussing policy directions for the future is under way at the Congress Centre.
The issue of farm-fed grain will likely be raised at that conference but will be examined in the light of a need for a stabilization program, but one which treats Canadian farmers in an equitable way.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on Motion No. 310 which requests the government to consider doing something about the effect of paying stabilization on grain that is sold commercially but not paying stabilization on farm fed grain.
At present most people involved in the production of grain recognize that the terms of the Western Grain Stabilization Act and the Agricultural Stabilization Act do not treat those who produce the grain and sell it on the commercial market in the same way as those farmers who grow the grain and then feed it to their own livestock. The process is very clear.
I was reviewing the remarks made by the member from Brandon-Souris and wondered why the government is being somewhat dense on this in the sense that it does not seem to recognize that there is a detrimental effect upon the rural communities because of the forced separation, to a great extent, of the meat sector in farming from that of the grain producing sector.
The Stabilization Act kicks in when farmers growing and selling their grain on the commercial market get a low market price. Otherwise stabilization acts would not become effective. The stabilization payment they get brings them somewhat closer to the cost of production.
The farmer who grows that grain and feeds it to his own livestock does not get that stabilization payment. Even if he is on the stabilization for one of the hog programs or one of the beef programs, the cost of that
cheap grain is factored in. In other words, the stabilization payment is lost to that particular farmer. He does not get it as part of his income for that year.
This has had the effect of forcing families to separate their feeding operations from their growing operations to the point where, in some cases, they quit one of them entirely and sell the grain to the neighbour when, if farm-fed grains were treated the same way as commercial grains as far as stabilization was concerned, those farmers would continue to produce cattle and hogs.
The Pork Marketing Council makes a very good case. It suggests that this different treatment of people who grow their grain and feed it to their livestock and those who sell it on the commercial market is so detrimental that it is forcing some farmers to leave the production of hogs and go entirely into the production of grain in those years when make veiy much money producing either the feed or the hogs. Consequently, the need for the stabilization becomes very obvious.
This Motion No. 310 asks the government to deal with this discrimination in some way. It does not suggest that we eliminate either one or the other of the programs. It suggests that in the process of dealing with this, one has to look at the differentiation, recognize that there is a differentiation and then do something about it.
That was the recommendation made to the Department of Agriculture by Daryl Kraft a number of years ago. And it is the recommendation made by a good number of farm organizations which have had the opportunity to make presentations to the government. Daiyl Kraft included the recommendation, when he made his report, that farm-fed grains be made eligible for stabilization coverage. He gave two alternatives that the government could consider in order to close that gap. The government has taken no action on this recommendation at all.
The pork producers go on to suggest that there should be no difference in the treatment of grain that is fed to the livestock operation on the same farm on which it is is grown and grains sold through commercial channels. If there were no difference between the two, we would not have the situation that is negatively affecting rural

communities with mixed farms that have small numbers of livestock. Rather, farmers would specialize.
Not so long ago, a lot of our policies were established with the idea of getting people to produce more grain or more hogs. Now, under the present circumstances of the economy of agriculture, we need to take a look at those things and make sure that one of the programs does not detrimentally affect another, and that is all that is being asked here in Motion No. 310.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in entering into this debate today. I might say to the hon. member who introduced the motion that it is not a motion void of merit. Certainly, it is one that commands our attention and reflection. And for those of us who live in agricultural communities, it is a fact that this motion is very much on the minds of those who are involved in a combination of both feeding and raising grains. The important point to underscore at the moment, however, is one that I am sure the hon. member for Mackenzie will appreciate. We have in Ottawa at the moment one of the largest collections of farm leaders from across Canada who are disposed in part with this very question.
Because they are undertaking to look at and review the nature of feeding farm grains and the relationship that ought to be with the whole question of grain support programs, it would seem to me that it would be an important consideration to wait until they have had the opportunity, as farm leaders, to reflect upon this matter. They can give us the value and the wisdom of their good counsel before we, as members, make a precipitous motion that might put us into a position which subsequently might lock us on to a direction for which the farm community itself might want to go with some variance or in some slightly different direction.
The Western Grain Stabilization Program and the Agricultural Stabilization Programs provide supports to producers when grain prices drop below the five-year average. However, livestock producers in both eastern and western Canada have expressed concern that farm-fed grain is not included in the two stabilization programs. In some livestock support programs the price of grain is included in the formula for triggering these programs. So, when grain prices rise, support prices for
Private Members' Business
livestock rise. But livestock support programs do not account for the cost of producing farm-fed grain. If the price of grain is unchanged but grain production costs increase, this is not reflected in the payments through livestock support programs.
This is an important issue but it should not be considered in isolation. Including farm-fed grain in stabilization programs is an issue which must be looked at in the broad context of all agricultural stabilization programs. Including farm-fed grain in the Western Grain Stabilization Act and the ASA seems like a simple way to provide additional protection to producers who feed grain to their livestock. It really is not. Including farm-fed grain in these programs would create a whole new set of issues.
First, some stabilization programs, such as the dairy program, already include a portion of the cost of producing farm-fed grains. If farm-fed grains were included in the Western Grain Stabilization and the ASA some producers would receive compensation twice on the same grain. Second, including farm-fed grain in the Western Grain Stabilization and the ASA would change these programs completely. Both programs would be based on production rather than on commercial sales. This has a number of implications. Both the Western Grain Stabilization Act and the ASA were based on production. Good yield data would be essential. Individual yield data would likely not be available in all cases and the program would have to be administered on the basis of regional yield averages.
Farmers will not be getting payments based on individual data and that could raise some questions of inequity. Producers with yields below the regional average would be overpaid and those with higher yields would, unfortunately, be underpaid.
Including farm-fed grain in the Western Grain Stabilization Act and the ASA may give livestock producers more protection. But taking this step would remove the protection which the grain producers have from being unable to market their grain.
Right now if producers cannot make deliveries, that is reflected in the reduced sales and the Western Grain Stabilization Act payment can be triggered. If the West-

December 11, 1989
Private Members' Business
em Grain Stabilization Act were based on production, payments under both programs would not be triggered because of reduced deliveries.
Finally, including farm-fed grain in the Western Grain Stabilization Act and the ASA, would make both programs more expensive. In the case of the Western Grain Stabilization Act, farmers would share those increased costs along with the government.
Farm-fed grain plays a significant role in our agricultural economy. About half of the cereal crops produced in Canada, excluding wheat, are fed to livestock. In the Maritimes, the proportion of farm-fed grain is even higher. Even when wheat is included, about 30 per cent of cereal crops are fed on farms. The federal government realizes the significance of farm-fed grain in our agricultural economy. We have talked with producers and their organizations about including farm-fed grain in the stabilization programs.
Most recently, in the summer of 1988, this issue was raised at a series of regional meetings with the Minister of Grains and Oilseeds held with farm organizations to discuss farm safety nets. Farm-fed grain was an issue raised at all of those meetings and it is an issue that was raised again in January, 1989 on farm safety nets held in Winnipeg.
The Standing Committee on Agriculture also looked into the issue of farm-fed grain in its January, 1986 report on the Western Grain Stabilization Act. This is what the committee concluded on the issue of farm-fed grain.
It should be only for the final products marketed that the producer receives market risk protection under the Western Grain Stabilization Act, or the ASA. In the case of livestock producers, they face the livestock market, but not the grain market risks. Treating livestock producers as grain producers means that the grain may be covered in the raw form and again as it goes into the final product.
That, I hasten to mention, was a recommendation of an all-party committee of this Parliament.
The federal government is about to undertake an agricultural policy review. One of the topics we will be discussing with producers and their organizations is how farm-fed grain should be dealt with under the grain income stabilization program. A number of suggestions have already been put forward for discussion. We have been debating just one of those options, including farm-fed grain in grain income stabilization programs.
Another option is including the cost of grain production in the formulas for calculating support under meat and poultry stabilization programs. This type of system is already in place for the dairy program. One drawback to this option is that livestock support prices would go up when the cost of grain production goes up, but not when actual grain prices rise. This would mean less protection for producers who buy feed rather than grow it themselves.
Another option is a program which would stabilize income for both livestock and grains. This option would be targeted toward the profitability of the producer's over-all operation. Livestock and grain incomes would not be considered then in isolation. The program would have to be operated at individual farm levels to take into account how significant livestock and grain receipts are to each operation.
The federal government is currently undertaking a review of all farm safety-net programs and the issue of farm-fed grain will be included in that policy review. The goal of the policy review is to work with industry and with the producers to knock out a national policy for Canadian agriculture.
The Minister of Agriculture has set out four principles as the basis for a national agricultural policy. They include market responses, self-reliance, sustainable and regional sensitivity. I would like to address the issue of market responsiveness and how it relates to the Western Grain Stabilization Act-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the member but his time has expired. The only way to continue would be through unanimous consent. Is the House ready to give a couple of minutes more to the member to complete his speech?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The member for Crowfoot has the unanimous consent of the House.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the House for giving me an extension of time. I appreciate it very much.
I would like to address the issue of market responsiveness and how it relates to the Western Grain Stabilizatin Act and the ASA for a moment. Concern has been expressed that the two programs discourage the use of grain on farms as feed, and promote off-farm sales instead. The livestock sector represents a major opportu-

nity for value-added and diversification in the agriculture sector.
Here is what "The Road Not Taken", a study done by producers through the National Grains Bureau, "Grains 2000"program states about the opportunities for value-added activities in the meat sector:
The livestock sector serves as the principal feed stock to an expanded food processing sector. The meat processing sector represents the third largest industry in Canada with annual sales exceeding $8 billion. It employs 31,000 people with a payroll of $764 million and purchases almost $7 billion worth of goods and services a year. More importantly, it is almost totally a value-added industry. Properly managed, it could provide the main engine to a much more diversified and substantially better stabilized Canadian agriculture.
We are willing to work with industry to develop programs which will encourage value-added activities and diversification. But simply tinkering with the Western Grain Stabilization Act or the ASA will not be enough.
As I have pointed out, including farm-fed grains in these programs would bring a new set of inequities. We have to take a much more comprehensive approach. That is why the federal government is reviewing all agricultural programs, including the Western Grain Stabilization Act and the ASA. We want to find out how these programs affect market signals, the decisions producers make about their operations, the environment and the region, and we will be working with industry to come up with better policies and programs which will be more in tune with the needs of the industry.
With that, again, Mr. Speaker, I extend my appreciation to the House for the extended time that was allowed me to complete those comments.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate today, a debate about the extension of the Western Grain Stabilization program to the livestock producers who grow their own grain, as well as the amendment that extends the coverage under the Agriculture Stabilization Act to those same producers in other parts of the country.
I have to commend my colleague for bringing in a motion like this because I think it is time well spent, not only to look at the current issues but in consideration of the projected farm income figures for the coming year. We find that the incomes are going to be dropping drastically. In Ontario, incomes will be down by 8 per cent; in Manitoba, 87 per cent; in Alberta, 54 per cent,
Private Members' Business
and in Saskatchewan by 101 per cent. While these incomes to the producers are dropping like this, we see in the documents prepared for the conference today and in the news release they expect that pork prices will decline moderately in the next year even though beef prices may go up slightly.
Because we have the supply management systems in place for both dairy and poultry, they are not going to be hit as hard unless the government continues on its trend to pull away the underpinnings of these national supply marketing systems. Then, of course, there will be a return to the law of the jungle, disaster for all those involved and a massive take-over of those markets by the huge corporate farms to the south of us.
When you stop and look at the rationale behind the motion, you have to realize that those producers who grow their own grain always hit the same cycle. When the prices of grain are low, the livestock prices are similarly low as well. Even though they may qualify for tripartite stabilization on the livestock they are producing, at the same time that is only a break-even price and they have already suffered the same production losses. Those are the losses in their cost of production per acre on the grains they used to raise that livestock.
I am very concerned as I speak today because we have already seen many of our farm programs changed in the way of legislation. Most recently was the change in the Crop Insurance Act for the producer to be required to pay a full 50 per cent. Yet the federal government is going to get off the hook for 25 per cent of what the costs have been to it in the past, even though the provinces will be expected to pick up part of the balance of the costs.
I think it would have been much more prudent on behalf of the federal government when we have the forecast losses in the coming year to have put forward a bill that would have brought about a system of tripartite crop insurance.
I also have to think back on Bill C-36, the farm crop cash advances with the interest-free loans and how the government delayed from late in April when the budget was brought down until legislation was finally introduced in Parliament some five months later. Then it was brought through the House of Commons at second reading and into committee and out again. Then there

December 11, 1989
Private Members' Business
was a further delay of three weeks before it finally got third reading.
Also, we have to look at the At and East program that will impact dramatically on those in Atlantic Canada and on the availability of grain to them at reasonable prices. That is being removed at the present time under proposed legislation. I have to remind the government that this was an initial market for western grain that could now very well be filled by offshore grains and deprive our Canadian farmers in western Canada of yet another good market.
When I look at these various programs that are being phased out by this government, I wonder where all these ideas are coming from. Certainly they are not all cost cutting in terms of savings they are going to give to us. When we rob Peter to pay Paul, Canadians are still going to suffer.
In terms of farm crop cash advances, as I indicated when I spoke in that debate, the increase in taxes from tobacco and alcoholic beverages alone amounted to approximately $475 million in the last budget. Yet this total program only cost $27 million in terms of the crop advances. The rationale does not hold up that they are cutting some programs in an effort to control the deficit when, in fact, they raised the taxes on the same commodities that benefit from those programs by $475 million.
I have to reflect back to a speech made in the Senate committee on agriculture in Washington on April 19, 1989, a statement by Clayton Yeutter, the Secretary of Agriculture. At the top of page 7 he states that if the GATT negotiations are successful, we will be writing a segment of the European Community's 1991 farm bill in Geneva rather than in Brussels.
The Secretary of Agriculture in the United States is going to write the farm bills for these other countries in Europe. He goes on to state that this is obviously one of our objectives. Then he says that the U.S. will also be writing a major segment of the farm bills of Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Australia and several other countries in Geneva.
Here we have a U.S. Secretary of Agriculture writing farm bills for Canada. We see the proof of the pudding when we see these programs cancelled in the budget that came down in the House of Commons in the last few days of April, a leaked budget, I should add. Then we see
these programs brought in to be gutted or cancelled in the House of Commons.
I think it is deplorable that any nation such as this should have to dance to the tune played by a fiddler in Washington who openly admits he is going to write the farm policies for this country when a policy is desperately needed to provide more help to the farmers in Canada.
I received a letter from the Canadian Pork Council dated December 7, 1989, asking us to support this bill because it is desperately needed. Many of the pork producers grow their own grains but they too have been hit hard, not only by the disastrously low grain prices we have had since this Tory government came to power but also the fact that we have had three drought years. Particularly in my area, there have been droughts in 1985, 1987 and 1988.
I look at what has happened in western Canada, particularly in the province of Saskatchewan. Some areas of that province were hit equally hard this year as they were in the previous two years. Now is not the time to be cancelling some of these programs but rather it is the time to be adding to and broadening that support we have had in the past to cover the grain fed to livestock.
It is a sad commentary when I look at what is happening across this nation, particularly at a time just before Christmas when we have heard a lot of talk here about how many people have become unemployed during the last few weeks as the various plants laid off workers or announced closures. It is equally sad to see the plight of some of the farm people across this nation in the provinces. I am referring particularly to Saskatchewan. One man who called me this morning suggested that there would be as many as 8,000 farmers forced off their land this winter in Saskatchewan.
I call upon the government at this point to stop and take a look at what it is doing.


An Hon. Member:: Eight thousand?


Ralph Ferguson: Up to 8,000. Those are the figures he gave me. I am not talking about Farm Credit Corporation, I am talking about the whole group regardless of where they are financed. There could be up to 8,000 forced off their land in Saskatchewan this winter. I heard that from a reasonably good authority, perhaps someone closer to it than a lot of members in this House. He is
December 11, 1989

involved with some church groups that are trying to find a way to help these people.
I think it is tragic that we find ourselves in a situation like this at this time of year before the Christmas season. It is tragic that we find ourselves in a situation where a province that is noted as being the bread-basket of the world is now forced into a position where its farmers cannot even make a break-even living, where they have to find outside employment, not only for the husband but for the wife, in order to carry on their operation.
This area has been neglected too long and I would have to suggest to this government that it is by the strengthening and building on the programs that are already there, rather than taking them away, that this problem will be resolved. It is with proposals such as the one we have here today that we will be able to maintain a strong livestock sector across this nation, rather than see the decline we have had in the last few years and the hardships inflicted upon these people.
I wholeheartedly support the proposal that is before the House this afternoon. I hope it will move forward for consideration into committee.


Mr. Brian White (Dauphin -Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in the debate on Motion No. 310 standing in the name of the member for Mackenzie, and its amendment.
I am tempted to address some of the comments made by the previous speaker, the member for Lambton- Middlesex, but I will resist that temptation and restrict my comments to the motion before us.
Motion No. 310 supports the inclusion of farm-fed grain into the existing stabilization programs for marketed grain. Including farm-fed grain in the grain stabilization framework is an issue we have heard brought up before by producers. It has been raised many times in previous years. In particular, the Prairie Pools, for example, have made the proposal recently.
The Western Grain Stabilization Program and the Agricultural Stabilization Act provide protection to farmers based on grain marketings. Farmers who do not market their grain, but instead feed it on their own farms
Private Members' Business
to livestock have argued that they need similar protection.
About half of the cereals other than wheat grown in Canada are fed to livestock on farms where the grain was grown. This is the case across most of the country, except in the maritimes where the proportion of farm-fed grain is higher. If we include wheat, about 30 per cent of the grain is fed on the farm.
Producers in western Canada feed slightly less of their grain production to livestock than is the case in eastern Canada. Amending either the WGSA or the ASA to include farm-fed grain would involve major changes in the structures of these programs. It would involve basing the calculations used to determine support levels on grain production instead of on grain sales.
A production-based program would rely on good yield data which may be very difficult to get. Using yield averages for different regions could penalize producers with higher yields while benefiting those with lower yields.
As we can see, the issue is a very complicated one. If changes are made to those programs, the result could well be stabilization programs which create more inequities than presently exist among regions and types of farm operations.
In addition, we can see this issue as one which involves producers in all regions. One of the earlier speakers, the member for Crowfoot, mentioned the 1986 report of the agriculture committee, and without mentioning some of the specifics that he mentioned, I would mention recommendation No. 10 of the committee in 1986. It was that undesignated sales remain ineligible under the Western Grain Stabilization Act. The two major reasons for this were that first of all it would be very difficult administratively because levy collection in the case of undocumented sales would create extreme difficulties and the second major reason was that the Western Grain Stabilization protection should only be for the final products marketed. In this case, the final product is the beef or hog production as the case may be.
Some protection for farm-fed grain does exist in the form of livestock support programs, but for the most part, those programs use market price for grain in support calculations rather than the cost of producing the grain. When grain prices fall, livestock support prices fall. For the producer who buys grain to feed his livestock, lower support prices reflect lower costs, but for

December 11, 1989
Private Members' Business
the producer who grows his own grain to use as feed, there is no reduction in costs to offset the reduced support price.
However, some dairy producers are at least partially protected as the cost of grain production is factored into the price support formula. To include the cost of producing grain into the price support calculations for all livestock programs would cause the reverse of the situation I have just explained. That is, when the costs of producing grain increase, the livestock support prices will increase. That is fair for the producer who grows his own feed, but protection is reduced for the farmer who has to buy his feed.
There are still inequities. This clearly indicates the importance of dealing with stabilization in a broader context. We must consider the impact that making changes to any stabilization program will have on other programs or other sectors of the industry.
This is why grain stabilization is a major component in the agricultural policy review now under way by the federal government. This comprehensive review is being undertaken to prepare Canada's agricultural industry to keep pace with the changing and increasingly globalized market-place. Our agriculture industry must be prepared for the next century, and a solid foundation for agriculture must be built now.
One of the more important considerations in this extensive review is the issue of safety nets. This is very timely because tomorrow morning, in fact, as part of the conference entitled "Growing Together", the agri-food conference being held in Ottawa this week, there is a major session on safety nets. This session is being chaired jointly by the Ministers of Agriculture for Manitoba and Newfoundland.
The federal government is attempting, through conferences like the one being held this week, with the help of the industry, to develop a safety net system to assist producers in managing risk better. At the same time, it is essential that these safety nets do not interfere with the way in which farmers make their management decisions, nor hamper Canada in marketing our agricultural products abroad.
I think it is important to mention briefly the four basic principles of the foundation of the agriculture policy review. First, national agricultural policies must be market responsive. Our agriculture industry must be
able to respond to market signals and demands, both in Canada and abroad. Opportunities for value-added production and diversification must be pursued.
Second, the industry must be self-reliant. This means federal policies and programs must nurture a climate of opportunity, without undermining the independence of the industry. Third, agriculture in this country must be sustainable. The long-term economic health of the industry depends to a large degree on a clean, healthy environment. Sustainable agricultural production must be economically viable.
Finally, a national agricultural strategy must be sensitive to the regional differences in this country. It must build on regional strengths and resources.
A vital part of the development of a national strategy for Canadian agriculture is consultation with the industry. The federal government is seeking input from farmers and from industry representatives from across Canada representing the many sectors of Canadian agriculture.
In closing, I would like to stress that we cannot look at stabilization of farm-fed grain in isolation from other agricultural policies and programs.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of the motion which is before the House today. I think that the views which have been expressed in this House have been to the point, particularly in respect of this bill. However, I think that there is a broader issue that must be discussed when looking at this issue and, in fact, when looking at other issues in respect of agriculture.
All agricultural programs must be discussed with some broader objectives in mind. We must ask ourselves the question, what future do we want for agriculture in this country. That is a question that in the past has not been addressed properly or with any real sincerity. The basic question with respect to agriculture is, of course, do we wish to maintain viable family farming units or do we wish to move to the industrial corporate farming model.
Since World War II, the programs and policies that have been implemented by various Liberal and Conservative governments through the years have not had any underlying foundation or any underlying base to them. Often we found programs and policies that have been divergent, that have not accomplished the tasks which
December 11, 1989

they set out to accomplish. It is important that we address our attention to this fundamental issue.
The government has put together a paper Growing Together, and there is a conference that is presently taking place. There are four pillars which have been suggested and which have been recounted by the government a number of times. Just to review them very briefly, they are calling for more market responsiveness, greater self-reliance, a national policy which recognizes diversity and increased environmental sustainability.
Those are very general concepts which can be supported in the abstract. The question, of course, is how will these translate into actual government policy. I think it is clear from attending the conference today that the direction this government is going in is a direction that is not considering the future viability of family farms. It is encouraging and moving toward the industrial corporate model and that is the direction that this government has chosen to take and I believe will be submitting policies with respect to that end.
This is a good opportunity to discuss agricultural issues but it is unfortunate that the government will be taking that direction. The government does state that it is a government of consultation. It is a government that desires to maintain a family farm model. But the evidence is not there. Certainly other bills that have recently been passed do not project that. Certainly the bill on advance payments which was recently passed increased the amount of advance payments to a limit of $250,000.1 do not know how many small producers, even medium producers, can take advantage of a $250,000 loan. That is a large amount of money. It is simply passing that legislation to the detriment of the family farmer in this country.
The idea of consultation that the government says it is entering into is certainly not clear from its handling of the oats issue. There was an outcry across this country when the government announced that it was going to remove oats from the Canadian Wheat Board. I and my colleagues have been in this House every day introducing petition after petition calling for the government to maintain oats under the Canadian Wheat Board. In fact, I just received today an answer to one of those petitions which says after careful consideration of the unique market potential for Canadian oats and in consideration of how that market could best be served, a decision was made to have the industry market oats. This change was
Private Members' Business
made solely in the best interests of the Canadian oats producer.
The Canadian oats producers do not want that. In fact, it is very clear that over two-thirds of producers in western Canada would prefer oats to remain under the Canadian Wheat Board. There is not consultation in the general sense of the word. There is simply consultation with those groups that agree with the government's position. That is unfortunate for the government. It is unfortunate for the producers and it is unfortunate for the people of this country.
There is also a broader issue that deals with rural Canada. We have to address the future of agriculture. We have to address the future of rural Canada generally. That includes small business, seniors and young people.
Across this country, many of the issues that are of concern to rural Saskatchewan are also the same concerns that exist in rural Nova Scotia, rural Prince Edward Island, rural Quebec or rural Ontario. The fact is that the rural infrastructure in this country is collapsing. Unless something is done to change that trend, rural Canada is in very severe trouble.
Certainly the small business people are closing their doors. Seniors are not remaining in communities where they grew up because of the lack of health care and transportation services and the lack of other amenities. Young families are not moving there for the same reason.
There needs to be a viable economic base in those communities in rural Canada in order to help maintain those areas. Certainly the recent projections for farm income reveal that fact. While farm income is projected to be down by 50 per cent across Canada, western Canada is severely hit. In the province of Saskatchewan, it is expected that people will have a negative net income next year, something that I find quite remarkable. Manitoba will be down by 87 per cent and Alberta by 54 per cent.
The producers in this country are in a severe financial situation. In my home province of Saskatchewan, we have something like over 39,000 farms which have an acreage of less than 1,000 acres and only 14,000 with acreages above 1,000 acres. The programs that are being developed and the way this government is talking is not looking at those smaller producers. Those producers, if they maintain themselves on the land, are the ones going into the general stores and buying the goods. They are the ones who are supporting the local pharmacies, doctors and dentists. If those people are gone, then there

December 11, 1989
Private Members' Business
is severe economic hardship for the community as a whole.
On this particular motion, I would like to make a couple of very short comments before my time runs out. The motion is really designed to help provide some equity and to help provide some fairness in the farming industry. If the goal is to encourage viable mixed farms in this country, then this motion should be supported by the government. We have the odd situation where a producer in times of low prices, instead of feeding the grain to his livestock which he would normally do, because of the situation is encouraged to deliver the grain to market. He is going to get a higher price for it because of the stabilization payment.
We have an irony here in that we have a free enterprise government which is hampering a farmer's ability to make some market decisions. What we want is to have some equity and some fairness in this program so that farmers can make those decisions and so that the farming economy will progress in a fashion that will be best for the local producers and allow them to make those decisions to maintain some viability.
We would ask that this bill be supported.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you will find that there is consent among the three parties that we suspend the sitting of the House to the call of the Chair for the purposes of considering a special order later in the day.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That would be all right at six o'clock. At six o'clock, the Chair would suspend the sitting of the House for a few minutes. Is there agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is now 5.58 p.m. In the
meantime, on debate, I recognize the member for Wild Rose.


Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to say a few words about the Western Grain Stabilization Program and the Agricultural Stabilization Program.
All agriculture programs, including WGSA and ASA, are currently under review. The federal government has released a discussion paper to bring producers and their organizations into the policy review process. This paper is the focal point for discussion at the national agri-food policy conference being held at the Congress Centre today and tomorrow.
It is clear that our policies and programs need to change. We have worked with producers and their organizations to improve these programs in the past. The Western Grain Stabilization Program was amended in 1985 to improve the timing of issuing payments to producers. The act was amended so that producers would receive an interim payment in the spring during crop years when calculations indicated that there would be a substantial program payout. This amendment put cash in the hands of producers right before spring seeding when they needed it most.
In 1988 the Western Grain Stabilization Act was amended again.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I regret to interrupt the hon. member. The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.


SITTING SUSPENDED
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: According to the order previously passed by the House, this sitting is suspended to the call of the Chair.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 6:01 p.m.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 7 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy House Leader.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to inform the House that we have been unable to come to an agreement among the three parties in spite of our best intentions, so we ask that you simply adjourn the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.01 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, December 12, 1989