1989-12-06

Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am troubled by the proposal of the Auditor General to set up an anonymous tattle-tale hotline to encourage civil servants to tell tales about other civil servants to the Auditor General. I am particularly concerned that the Auditor General appears to be dismissing out of hand the view of Canada's privacy commissioner that the proposed hotline is dangerous and perhaps even illegal.
I believe that public servants have a right to know then-accusers and I would urge the government not to approve funds which would sanctify, subsidize and institutionalize anonymous informants, certainly not before Parliament has had an opportunity for a thorough examination of the issue.
I do not accept on the face of it the suggestion that a tattle-tale hotline is somehow the same as a crime stoppers hotline. The Auditor General should understand that he is not dealing with organized crime syndicates, he is dealing with hard working Canadian public servants. We all want to save money in this country but not at the expense of Canadians' individual rights.
I do not think the Auditor General should feel free to ignore the advice of the privacy commissioner on civil liberties any more than the privacy commissioner would feel free to ignore accounting advice from the Auditor General.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, the tariff on U.S. com places an extra undue burden on Atlantic livestock producers. Atlantic Canadian farmers already straggling to be competitive must now pay more for feed because of higher transportation costs than those in any other area of Canada. On top of this, they must carry the extra burden of the tariff on com. Again, farmers of other areas do not have to absorb such a tariff.
I call on the Minister of State for Privatization and Regulatory Affairs to give this issue top priority and work to remove this tariff which hurts all Atlantic livestock producers in a very real way.


Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration is rescheduling deportation of Haitians who fear persecution from the oppressive government of General Namphy in Haiti. They have reason to fear persecution.
On October 4, thugs threatened the staff of Radio Soleil, Radio Cacique and Radio Haiti. On October 6, Vilme Eleazar of the Catholic Church Justice and Peace Commission was stabbed to death after demonstrating with 46 other commission members against the repressive government. On October 12, a land owner, four soldiers and an army second lieutenant shot and killed a peasant in a land dispute. On November 1, one labourer and one political opposition leader were arrested and beaten by police.
Recently two Quebec missionaries have been assassinated. Recently, in the Plaisance communal section, all public gatherings have been forbidden, even religious ones. Renaud Bemarden in Le Devoir calls this state terrorism and points out that candidates for highest office used force to block elections and are demanding

December 6, 1989
that Duvalier supporters be allowed to run in violation of the constitution.
My question is why does the minister insist on sending back people to risk prison, torture and assassination in Haiti?


TOURISM
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton -Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, customs and excise officials have for years been conducting immigration pre-clearance on behalf of the Department of Employment and Immigration at the airport in Houlton, Maine, as a service to residents of the United States on their way to visit Canada. Many of the people who benefit from this service are American sportsmen who are coming to New Brunswick to hunt and fish in our forests and rivers. This industry accounts for approximately $9 million in revenue each year and provides jobs for some 7,000 guides.
The service was discontinued on October 31, 1989, based on the position of employment and immigration that there was no provision in legislation for this activity. However, the principle for permitting the pre-clearance of visitors to Canada on U.S. soil was established in 1974 in a treaty between Canada and the U.S.
I understand that External Affairs has explored the question of expanding this provision to include other locations. I urge the Minister of National Revenue to review this matter and work with his cabinet colleagues to reach a solution that will permit reinstatement of pre-clearance at Houlton, Maine.


TRANSPORTATION
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, some time in January this government is expected to deliver another blow to Atlantic Canada. This will come in the form of an 11 per cent increase in ferry rates for trucks.
The reason for this and other rate increases is the steady reduction in federal subsidies to Crown owned Marine Atlantic. However, in a province like Prince Edward Island, higher transportation costs mean higher priced consumer goods and less competitive exports.
Now that VIA Rail has been forced by this government to reduce its service, we are wondering if Marine Atlantic will be forced to do so as well. I call on the Minister of Transport to refuse this 11 per cent increase, to restore a fair and working subsidy to Marine Atlantic.
The people of Atlantic Canada have suffered too much at the hands of this government and it has to stop now.


DROUGHT ASSISTANCE
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, despite what the television news was indicating during periods of the past summer, the drought in western Canada has not ended. In fact, the 1989 crop in my constituency of Brandon-Souris and in parts of eastern Saskatchewan was considerably worse than it was in 1988.
Due to the fact that drought and low prices have had an accumulative negative impact on farm incomes, many farmers are experiencing more serious financial circumstances than they ever have before. As the hon. Minister for Grains and Oilseeds has repeatedly indicated publicly that he would readily consider any provincial proposal for a jointly-funded drought relief program, I urge the provincial governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba to make such an offer immediately. The financial need is real-even though it has not been televised-and governments must jointly respond.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, as we near the end of this session, there is some concern about the fate of the bill on unemployment insurance reform which is now before the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, any delay in passing Bill C-21 will deprive many unemployed workers of their unemployment insurance benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to appeal to the Liberal majority in the Senate to stop its obstructionist tactics so that disadvantaged regions will not be penalized. Any delay in passing this bill will have serious consequences. Thousands of unemployed workers who have worked the requisite ten weeks will be unable to receive unemploy-
December 6, 1989

ment insurance benefits if the bill is not passed by the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, families and children will be in great difficulty because of the Senate's obstruction, and I would urge the Senate to show some maturity and common sense so that this bill can be expedited through Parliament.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House a very serious matter. The Armenian people living in Nagorno-Karabakh, which is an autonomous region under the control of the Azerbaijan, have been persecuted by the Azerbaijan government for some years now.
The situation was quieted for a short time when the region was placed under the administration and protection of Moscow. The Supreme Soviet on November 28 made the decision to pull its troops out of the region and as a result the killing of Armenians is starting again.
The Azerbaijani government has also put up a blockade which is seriously hampering efforts to rebuild the area after last year's earthquake.
In light of the Prime Minister's recent trip to the Soviet Union and the changes that are taking place in eastern Europe, I call on the Prime Minister to ask the Soviet Premier to give the protection and right to self-determination that the people of this region deserve.


NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY LEADERSHIP CONVENTION
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, the following is a list of adjectives which Canadians have used to describe the recent political leadership convention held in Winnipeg: Unbelievable, strange, different, unacceptable, conniving, backstabbing, open,
scarey, marvelous, preposterous, stupid, wonderful and insane.
Should another political party consider a leadership convention, it should refer to the Acme leadership candidates tips:
1.	Never wear a concealed 007 listening device.
2.	Invite media whose objective is to further the party's cause.
3.	Be on guard and constantly protect your back from other candidates.
4.	Take up a foreign language for intimate discussions.
5.	Send your mother and brother on a long vacation at your own expense.
6.	Beware of labour leaders.
Do you copy, Mr. Speaker? Do you copy, Mr. Speaker? If you copy, Mr. Speaker, I'll sit down.


EL SALVADOR
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Mr. Speaker, many of the Salvadorans arrested in the raid that saw Karen Ridd of Winnipeg arrested and later released remain in detention. Their lives are in great danger because under the Arena government's state of siege, the military have the power to charge people with assault on the high command, to immediately prosecute them and to sentence them to execution.
When is the Canadian government going to speak out clearly and strongly against the crimes of the Salvadoran regime? When is the Prime Minister going to send a strong message to Mr. Bush that American military aid to the reprehensible Arena government is unacceptable and must stop?
The silence of the Canadian government stems either from naivete or cowardice. I believe it to be the latter. If the Prime Minister remains silent on American aid to the Salvadoran military, then the Canadian government must share responsibility for the military's actions. If those courageous Salvadoran humanitarian workers are executed, the Canadian government, by its acquiescence to the official American view, must share the blame for their deaths. The government must speak out today.

December 6, 1989
Tributes


CONAIR AVIATION
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of members the growing success story that is Conair Aviation.
Late in November I had the pleasure of accompanying the Western Economic Diversification minister in Vancouver, where he announced a repayable loan to Conair in the amount of $539,451.
Conair of Abbotsford is a major forest fire-fighting company with some 400 employees. Conair is looking forward to growth in sales and in jobs as a result of the ingenuity and expertise in the business of aircraft rebuilds.
Conair has gained notoriety for having successfully completed over 50 rebuilds of Grumman tracker aircraft. Called Firecats, these fire bombers are gaining popularity in Australia and Europe. France presently has 16 and has plans for more.
Conair anticipates exports of 20 to 30 re-engined, turboprop Firecats at a price of some $3.5 million each. Significantly, each plane sustains 20 jobs a year. Four Firecats a year mean 80 jobs. With the help of the repayable contribution, Conair and its employees will be soaring to new heights.


TOY SAFETY
Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, every year at this time, it is a "parents beware" crisis around Christmas shopping. The Canadian Toy Testing Council releases in early November its annual toy guide for a fee in which it rates toys according to design, function, durability and play value, but it is mute on the question of safety.
This non-profit consumer advocacy group evaluates 1,500 items each year for its annual toy report. Too many of these products are unsafe for our children and therefore should be removed from the shelves.
It is unacceptable that no consumer toy testing agency in Canada has a mandate to test for safety. This is dangerous and irresponsible. The government should be issuing regular bulletins to make parents aware of unsafe toys. More inspectors are needed. Tougher enforcement should be mandatory along with the better labelling of toys.


LEADER OF THE NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the election of the new Leader of the New Democratic Party is a tremendous personal achievement and I convey both sincere congratulations and best wishes to her, I am sure, from every comer of this House.
As the first woman to lead a national party, she will bring to Parliament qualities of heart and mind that will benefit this institution. Her personal accomplishment is truly historic and will not be forgotten. It is historic and I congratulate her personally for such a major achievement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, while there are real and sharp party differences, there is a community of interests and a dedication to the public welfare that tends to make this institution work.
The new leader has already demonstrated her skill and resolve in dealing in this Chamber with the great issues of public policy confronting Canada and I look forward to working with her in the years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party and of course on behalf of all government members, I wish the Leader of the NDP every success in the performance of her new duties and offer her our assurances of sincere co-operation. As a colleague, I would like to say: Welcome!

The new Leader of the NDP will soon leam the challenges and the difficulties of national leadership, but obviously, one of her sources of joy will be a caucus of solidly united brothers and sisters.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this morning, Wednesday, was caucus and I could hear their caucus chorus of Solidarity Forever as far away as Meech Lake.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am sure that all members of all parties were impressed with the very fine photo on page one of The Globe and Mail this morning showing the new leader with Shirley Carr, both wearing big smiles. There is no
December 6, 1989

indication yet of what they were saying, and I can hardly wait until tonight to find out.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The member should not be offended because much of what Shirley Carr says about me is unprintable too.
Whatever our differences may be in the future, I hope that the new leader keeps in mind that the hon. member for Yukon, whoever he or she is over the years, always has a special place in my heart.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Public life brings with it periods of difficulty and moments of great joy. I think that for Canada, for all Canadians, regardless of political persuasion, the hon member's election to the leadership of a great national party will be viewed as a joyful occasion, and I am pleased today, as Prime Minister of Canada, to underline the strength of character and the very impressive personal qualities of the member that made it possible.

On behalf of all Canadians, I wish to extend to the hon. member my sincere congratulations and best wishes for the future.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I rise to add my voice to the thousands of Canadians who are offering congratulations to the new Leader of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Yukon.

The victory she won so gallantly, Mr. Speaker, is an historic one. Our colleague can be proud of the fact that she is following in the footsteps of such eminent figures as J.S. Woodsworth, M.J. Coldwell, Tommy Douglas, David Lewis, and his eminent predecessor, the hon. member for Oshawa. On that important day, Mr. Speaker, we all noticed the almost continuous presence at her side of Stanley Knowles, Woodsworth's last colleague who did a symbolic laying-on of hands.
I can inform the new leader that her election changes the dynamics of her own party, of our country and, I
Tributes
hope, of the House of Commons. In fact, I think a number of candidates for the leadership of my own party will be following her performance very closely, since her victory may affect their campaigns!

On a personal level, I want to warn her, Mr. Speaker, that in the coming weeks and months she will be receiving a good deal of advice, some of it solicited, most of it not; advice as to how she should lead the NDP and where she should lead the party. My advice to her is to listen to all of it, but do not compromise your own integrity, do not comprise your own reputation. No two things can disappear faster than reputation and integrity, and with more devastating consequences.
I also want to offer my congratulations to the other NDP candidates in the race. The member for Esqui-malt-Juan de Fuca made a convention speech which was a triumph. He did it his way, no holds barred, but he did it with wit and humour, panache and passion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I know, Your Honour, it is tough to lose a close race like that, but he has accepted the results with grace and equanimity.
The member for Essex-Windsor also delivered a very, very powerful speech. I found it full of direction and commitment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I know it is not easy running for the leadership of a political party. I congratulate every one of the candidates, those who are members of this House and the one who was not-perhaps we might see him here some day-for running excellent races.
I want to say to them that despite the mediocre press they received through a good deal of the campaign, they need to have something to offer since all of the so-called NDP stars sat out the leadership race and became media commentators and pundits, except toward the end of the final day when some of them became platform dancers. Listening to some of the commentary, it was my view that the candidates themselves performed a lot better than the commentators.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 6, 1989
Tributes


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has mentioned the challenges of leadership. Those challenges, I warn her, are unpredictable. We in this party all remember that in response to the initiatives of her predecessor, Erik Nielsen, then the member for Yukon, we had to sweep our caucus room for bugs; not that anything was confidential anyway.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I want to suggest to the new leader that she is going to have to go a step further. She is going to have to sweep them as they walk into the room.
I flew back with my colleagues from Winnipeg this morning, and we thought that we would buy her one of those airport metal detectors to put at the caucus door.
In any event, the convention certainly proved that the NDP is a modern party. It has entered the electronic age in a big way.
I do not know whether the hon. member for Yukon is going to accept her predecessor's suggestion which he made to me on several occasions, including on national television, that Canada would function better under a two-party system. Now, I want to tell her, and this is the time to say it to her, Mr. Speaker, that now is the time to talk about it. We are open to that idea. Whenever the NDP is ready to close up shop and join us, we can begin talks, as long as you leave your microphones at the door.
The new leader has said that she enjoys a challenge. Well, I cannot tell the hon. member for Yukon that we in this party wish her electoral success, quite the opposite. We do wish her success in meeting the tough challenge of following, in the initial days, in the footsteps of her very excellent predecessor, the hon. member for Osha-wa.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I hope, as a member of the House of Commons, she continues his complete commitment to the House of Commons, to treating this place seriously. If she does, our party and our caucus looks forward to working with her and her party in a co-operative fashion.
Again, my congratulations, Mr. Speaker, to her on her victory, on her new and important role in this country as Leader of her party, as a very, very important Canadian citizen.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Thank you, thank you very much for your words of congratulations!

I certainly look forward to working with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Official Opposition. I would like to say to the Prime Minister that I am glad that members from the Yukon have a special place in his heart. I assure him that he will have a special line in my book.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: There are a lot of people in this House who can give me very good lessons on being a leader, but the most important lesson I have learned since I have been here is of the dignity with which all leaders in this House have acted. It is correct, I am sure, as we have learned from our own experiences, that at times there are some differences of opinion in caucuses which we as leaders have to work toward mending.
I do not think anyone from now on will say the NDP is not fun. People have asked about my style. Part of our strategy is that we are going to destroy some of those myths. I think we have begun to destroy that one. As the hon. Leader of the Opposition said, we have moved into the age of technology. I got my metal detector on Sunday morning.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to be here and it is a great honour to serve with all of you. As the Prime Minister said, we certainly have our partisan differences. They are not going to go away. Neither, I suspect, hon. Leader of the Opposition, are any of the parties going to go away.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: We are all here to serve the Canadian people. I, too, want to pay special tribute to the other candidates in this leadership campaign who acted
December 6, 1989

with honour and who put themselves on the line. We all know what that means in politics. I want to give a special tribute to them. There are other leadership candidates in this room too, and they know what it has been like. I would really like to thank them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Of course, I have had another good teacher in this House and that is the hon. gentleman-I hesitate to say-to my left. I am even going to break the rules, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Ed Broadbent has brought great honour to this House throughout his career, and not only to the New Democratic Party but to us all. He is a politician who is respected, who speaks his mind, who stands up for what he believes. And, in the end, I think that is what we all do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: And finally, I want to thank the Prime Minister!

I look forward to working with you. I am sure that this gracious moment will continue through the next-three quarters of an hour!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Today dozens of mayors from all across Canada are in Ottawa as are many senior citizens and other outraged Canadians from Atlantic Canada and British Columbia. They are all here at their own expense. They are here to renew their call for a moratorium on the cuts to VIA Rail, cuts scheduled to be implemented on January 15.
On November 8 the all-party Standing Committee on Transport issued a report also calling for a moratorium on cuts to VIA Rail. Both inside and outside Parliament
Oral Questions
Canadians of every political stripe are asking this government to halt the slaughter of VIA Rail.
How can the Prime Minister expect to be taken seriously when he says that he believes in parliamentary committees, when he says that he believes in consulting the provinces and municipalities and when he says he believes in listening to senior citizens and the disabled while at the same time he refuses to listen to Canadians who say they want a quality passenger train service in Canada? Why is it that once again the Prime Minister believes that the Cabinet and he are right and all other Canadians are wrong?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, I have repeatedly answered questions from the Leader of the Opposition and others about a moratorium.
Today, December 6, 1989, the situation has not changed substantially from what it was in October, as far as resources are concerned. In other words, our reasons for setting new reference levels were based on the ability of people to pay for services that are being used very little. And Mr. Speaker, the first people to benefit from a sensible and efficient approach by government to management are the general public.
I repeat what I said before. I have no intention of requesting or putting a moratorium on the decision concerning VIA Rail.


John Napier Turner: We have heard that answer from the Minister of Transport before. The following question is directed to the Prime Minister, who has repeatedly told the House about his commitment to parliamentary reform. He has also said that he was personally very proud of the reform of parliamentary committees.
If he wants to be taken seriously, the Prime Minister should bear in mind that a standing committee of the House, with a majority of Conservative members, has asked the government to withdraw the budgetary cutbacks that are to take effect on January 15 at VIA Rail.
Why has the Prime Minister of Canada refused to take the advice of the standing committee? Will he not wait until an interim report by the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Transportation in Canada is published, to find out what the future holds for passenger rail transporta-

Oral Questions
tion, before proceeding with the budgetary cutbacks planned by the Minister of Transport?


Benoît Bouchard: The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the benefits of parliamentary reform, and rightly so, but it is not a one-way proposition. The freedom and independence granted parliamentary committees also means that when committes make recommendations, the minister has the right to either consider or not consider them, depending on the government's policies.
Mr. Speaker, we have repeatedly explained our position on paying for services that are not being used by the public.
Mr. Speaker, in the end, whatever the outcome may be, and contrary to what the party opposite did for 20 years, we have an obligation to consider the costs facing us, and when the government decides that those costs go beyond the financial resources available to us, we must take the kind of courageous decisions that this government has made, and that is why, while it has every respect for the advice of the parliamentary committee, the government has decided to stress the commitment to good management it made to Canadians.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to put the question again to the Prime Minister. On his many international trips surely he has seen what other countries are doing, in Europe and elsewhere, to improve high quality, high speed train service for people. This Prime Minister promised, on coming into office in 1984, to build a co-operative federalism. Not a single provincial government, not a single mayor of Canada's cities or towns approves of the Prime Minister's plans to destroy VIA Rail. From coast to coast Canadians are condemning the plan.
Will the Prime Minister agree, as I have on other occasions, to meet personally with the mayors from across Canada who are in Ottawa today? Does the Prime Minister not agree that these mayors represent an important and critical part of our democratic process and represent directly the communities that elected them and, on behalf of Canadians, have a right to put their case directly to the leader of our government, the Prime Minister of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I certainly acknowledge the very important role played by the mayors in our national life. Indeed, I have had the occasion to meet with many of them on a regular and ongoing basis regarding the matters that they choose to raise.
My right hon. friend asks about comments made by other world leaders when we travel. The principal comment made by world leaders when we travel is the comment that came out of the OECD the day before yesterday: "Continue the work, Government of Canada, of getting your deficit under control because it is key to ongoing economic prosperity for Canada".
There is the key, Mr. Speaker.


John Napier Turner: Pass that comment on directly to the mayors.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I pass it on to the mayors or to anybody else.
The Leader of the Opposition has spent his career since he came into this House as the captive of any interest group.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: He constantly puts forward every spending program. Never once has he given the slightest concern, in terms of the control of the deficit, to the massive deficit that began in Canada when the Leader of the Opposition was Minister of Finance.


Some Hon. Members:: You doubled it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is what we are dealing with. We are trying to clean up the mess left by the former Minister of Finance, the present Leader of the Liberal Party.


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The Minister knows that it costs $45 million to maintain VIA's nine remote routes. Forty-five million dollars would reinstate the chopped routes in Atlantic Canada. The Standing Committee on Transport, as well as the Liberal Party, has recommended that this money be approved separately by Parliament. This would allow for an additional $45 million in VIA's budget and allow for the reinstatement of the Atlantic Canada routes.
December 6, 1989

Will the Minister make this commitment to Atlantic Canadians?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I wish I could count like the Liberal Party does but I just cannot manage that.
Whichever way you look at it, Mr. Speaker, whether the $45 million are drawn from the VIA Rail budget or the government's supplementary estimates, they still add up to $45 million. We simply do not have those millions. We built a national network. We have kept an accessible network for which we can afford to pay.
That is not what my colleague is asking for. My colleague is urging us to do what the Liberal Party has always done: throw in money, more money, still more money!
You forgot to pay the bills and passed them on to us. That is what we are now trying to do.


George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, it is not just the Liberal Party, the Transport Committee is also requesting that this be done.
In October I asked the minister if the VIA Rail cuts would adversely affect CN and CP and he responded: "Absolutely not". I have been advised by CN that the 25 per cent reduction in VIA service has resulted in one in four dispatchers in Moncton being declared surplus and they will lose their jobs effective March 1, 1990.
Given that we now know that the minister's previous assurance was false, has CN misled the minister or, if not, can he explain the discrepancy?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, decisions which are made are made for VIA Rail when we are dealing with VIA Rail and CN when we are dealing with CN. The people of CN can say what they want.
I tell my friend here today that we made a decision in light of the resources we had and in light of the fact that Canadians want us to control the spending of the government. This is exactly what we are doing.
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has just returned from meetings in Brussels with other NATO leaders. The world has been watching the profound changes in eastern Europe, changes in which I think all of us applaud and take great joy and pleasure.
Can the Prime Minister tell us now, however, what he has proposed at those meetings as specific actions that Canada will take to take strong leadership in order to speed up this process of ending the cold war?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend rightly points to the centre of the most dramatic and most convulsive developments in the world today.
When the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I visited with President Bush, and when we were at NATO, we put forward a series of specific recommendations that we thought would be helpful in constituting the beginnings, at least, of a bridge between the Soviet Union and the western alliance and the industrialized nations.
They range from consideration for the idea put forward by President Mitterrand about an eastern European development bank, to membership in the IMF, to the requirement for the outgoing chairman of the industrialized summit to meet with President Gorbachev on a yearly basis, as well as a series of other initiatives.
We think that if all of these are taken together with other ideas that have been put forward by other leaders, there are the beginnings of the building of a solid bridge which will advance the causes that are being sought by my hon. friend and, I think, by all members of the House.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree that there needs to be real action on the economic issues that confront eastern Europe and, indeed, the developing world. I want to pose again a specific question because while Canada's role indeed should be to build bridges, surely we can also take leadership.

Oral Questions


LOW LEVEL FLIGHTS
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister specifically, in an attempt to really demonstrate not just a commitment but action and that we believe the cold war is over, will the Prime Minister now agree to stop low-level flights in this country, to stop cruise missile testing over the north?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think, as I indicated to the House the other day, and as many members from all parties have indicated, we are entering a new and important era of relationships between east and west. We should be sensitive to all opportunities for change. We should not reject ideas out of hand simply because they have not been tried before or they have been tried and found wanting.
I agree with the openness of the approach suggested by my hon. friend. I draw to her attention the comments made to me and the Secretary of State for External Affairs by President Gorbachev. He said that the most imprudent thing that could be done at this time, given the enormity of the changes in eastern Europe, would be changes in the structures of the alliances because at this particular time any such changes could be destabilizing with regard to the efforts that he and others are trying to bring about.
So while I take good note of the comments made by my hon. friend, I point out that the progress we have made so far, and it has been remarkable in the last number of years, has been brought about in large measure because of the leadership of President Gorbachev on the one side, but the solidarity of NATO on the other. We propose to keep that.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Prime Minister is aware of the remarks by his former ambassador on disarmament who said that, in fact, we are following the United States on disarmament issues. I am suggesting we take the lead. I may be new at it but it seems to me that leadership means leading from the front and not the back.

This is a historic moment. Canada must assume her rightful role as world peace leader. Now is the time to come up with constructive and positive suggestions. Why would the government not take this opportunity to
display leadership by proposing measures over which we have direct control?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, to answer the question properly, I must quote from an interview given by the Foreign Minister, Mr. Shervardnadze, on November 23, where he said, according to the English translation:

"As the Soviet leader stressed,-"

That was the interview granted by Mr. Shevardnadze. [English]
"-the Canadian Prime Minister's visit to the U.S.S.R. ranks among the events which help to change the world situation with a focus on a better future-The political declaration signed by the leaders of Canada and the U.S.S.R. is an intellectual and political breakthrough into the new interdependent world", and so on.

We have done two things as a government. First, we made a series of specific recommendations-seven, if I am not mistaken-for building bridges of friendship and realistic relations between the two blocs and, as Mr. Shevardnaze said so well, we have changed our attitude significantly. We will maintain this forward-looking position along with the positions which the hon. member will announce in this House.


TREASURY BOARD
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board who intends to put hospital service workers and ships crews back to work. These workers have been providing emergency services during the strike in spite of the government's tyranical action over the past two years to force them to accept pitiful salaries. How can the government justify this back-to-work legislation?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: As I was saying yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the informal negotiations which started several months ago are continuing. I said yesterday that if we could reach a negotiated settlement, I would favour this solution over a legislated settlement. I am still prepared, day or night, to meet the union leaders to try and reach a settlement

of this type. But for the time being, we have reached a dead end and major issues are still on the table. We are faced in one case with demands for yearly increases of 17.4 per cent, and in the other, 14.3 per cent.
In this conflict the interest of medium term public safety and public health must be resolved. That is why we will introduce later today a bill to set up a process for reaching a settlement. Mr. Speaker, I can say that we will not legislate an agreement per so, but rather a means to achieve a settlement.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, the workers have been providing emergency services. The Minister of Transport told the House yesterday that there is no problem with safety on the St. Lawrence River. Where was the minister's concern for safety last month when 1,700 lobster fishermen put out to sea? Is not the real reason for the sledgehammer of back-to-work legislation protecting the profits of the friends of government in the shipping business?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the real reason for the legislation is to break an impasse that does not seem to be able to be resolved through negotiations. I have said it before and I will say it again. I am willing to sit down at the table. Informal negotiations have been continuing throughout. The situation is at a point now where the two parties are so far apart, with demands of 17 and 14 per cent annual wage increases compared to 4.1 per cent for the rest of the 155,000 public servants, that we feel we have to move.
I would like to quote from a letter I received from Iris Craig, President of PIPS, who says: "The current and anticipated labour disruptions will undoubtedly have an egregious impact on the health and safety of government clients. Furthermore, any extended inoperation of federal government ships will jeopardize research activities in which significant time, energy and money has been invested. It will also jeopardize the Maritime economy of our country."
She is saying: "do something", and that is exactly what we are doing.
Oral Questions


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question also is directed to the President of the Treasury Board and it is twofold. It was partly covered in his last answer.
If it is necessary to introduce legislation, is he still prepared to negotiate, even with the legislation introduced? And in view of his answer yesterday about pay equity when he said that if there was a settlement there would be pay equity, which has been a longstanding problem in these trades, how does he intend to implement pay equity where the contracts are staggered and overlapping?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, first, even with the legislation introduced, I would be willing to negotiate at any time. I will repeat that commitment. I am available and I will be willing to negotiate.
In terms of the other part of my hon. colleague's question with regard to pay equity between the east coast workers and the west coast workers, the offer on the table at the moment is that as of the date of signing of the new bargaining agreement the east coast workers would get exactly the same compensation as the west coast workers so they would have parity.


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Yesterday he informed this House that wage parity was offered to the unions. What he did not say was that he would only agree to it if the unions dropped all the other issues.
Will he today, rather than introduce this legislation- legislation which indeed we will not support-continue to support this wage parity and at the same time return to the negotiating table and negotiate separately the outstanding issues that are there?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the premise of the question. I indicated yesterday and I indicated again today that wage parity was very much on the table and up-front on the day of signing. I would just like to assure my hon. colleague that there was never any question about this offer being conditional on dropping all of the demands.

Oral Questions
We know very well that there are other issues that have to be resolved and this particular issue was agreed upon without a further condition that all other demands be dropped.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I get a different story when talking to other people. We are now seeing the true value of the work being performed by these people. For instance, for every day that these ships' crews remain on strike it is costing the Great Lakes' economy approximately $2 million. Six million dollars will end this strike, that is three days of striking.
Again, rather than bringing in this legislation will the minister return to the table with the unions and settle this strike today, which can be done?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I have had informal conversations overnight, in the evening and again this morning, and as recently as roughly an hour before Question Period. I am still negotiating. I am there, I have said it repeatedly, and I will stay there. I am willing to discuss all and every remaining issue to try to get to a negotiated settlement.


AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. Almost 18,000 General Motors workers are now being laid off in addition to other plant shutdowns throughout Ontario, Quebec and other parts of Canada.
What action is this government taking to prevent more major job cuts in this industry as happened in the early 1980s? Does the government understand how urgent this crisis is becoming? Will the government act to do something serious?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, automobile sales, particularly by the big three North American manufacturers, are down considerably, some 13.8 per cent in November of this year compared to last year. As a result there is less production from the plants.
One of the things I think we can be particularly happy about in Canada is that as the auto industry has had to reduce its capacity, in reflecting this fact Canada has
done very well. For example, Chrysler has laid off 4,000 in the U.S. and has not yet laid off people in Canada, although it probably will.
Since 1987 nine plants have closed in the United States. So far we have avoided that happening in Canada. We cannot avoid that forever, but so far we have shown that the Canadian auto industry is very competitive compared to the American auto industry. As this cyclical adjustment goes through the economy, we are fortunate in Canada that we have not borne the same brunt the Americans have.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in fact much of the reason for this cyclical downturn is the tremendously high interest rates in this country. Surely the government should be moving on this.
In 1987 the international trade committee of this House unanimously called for maximum political and diplomatic pressure on offshore producers so as to meet the same Canadian content levels that the U.S. owned companies have to meet.
Could the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell this House if the government has followed the recommendation to put this full diplomatic pressure on offshore producers, or has the government simply ignored the recommendation?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, just over the weekend in looking at Canada's economic performance the OECD commented with high praise for what Canada is doing in this regard. As I pointed out, we have had in the last five years a growth rate second only to Japan, and just marginally so. We have incomes that are much higher than they were five years ago. The rate of poverty is down.
Yes, at the moment there is a drop off in car sales, and there are certain indications of a slowdown in the economy. But none of the major North American manufacturers are blaming this on foreign imports or on unfair competition.
The hon. member knows full well the posture of this government in respect to international trade. We are active in the MTN in terms of lowering trade barriers. We will continue to be so in our belief that it is good for the economy of Canada and the world and that Canadians can compete.
December 6, 1989


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He will be aware that the Government of Alberta has produced a paper that relates to the GST that is both mischievous and inaccurate.
I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if there is any evidence that he can find to indicate that the proposed GST would take more tax from the province of Alberta than the present manufacturers' sales tax? What does his research indicate with respect to the allegation that in fact the GST would be a tax grab of some $6 billion and is not revenue neutral?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have looked at that particular document. It is full of overblown rhetoric. I think it is something that people should review with a great deal of skepticism because of the nature of the particular report.
We do have figures which indicate that the amount of GST net of all the credits will be less than the amount of sales tax paid by people who are living in that province.
In addition, I can tell the hon. member that the low income credit is a very generous element of this over-all package. For the province of Alberta the credit will generate about $308 million and will be received by just short of 800,000 residents of the province of Alberta.
It is a balanced package. It is a package that is going to be favourable to the economy of Alberta. It is a fair package and will definitely be favourable to those people in the low and modest income brackets.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to test the minister on some of his own overblown rhetoric.
Yesterday, in answering a question in this House, he tried to tell us that the dividend tax credit was going to reimburse seniors for the clawback of old age pensions. The minister knows, or he should know if he understands his own tax system, that this is utter nonsense.
Oral Questions
The minister knows that the clawback is going to apply to a senior who receives only $40,000 in Canadian dividends, in spite of what he says the minimum threshold is. He also knows that that threshold is not indexed for inflation.
Will the minister admit that he was wrong in his answer yesterday? Will he admit that he is wrong in proposing this policy?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have commented on a number of occasions as to the rationale of this policy. It always surprises me that we have members of the Liberal Party spending more time trying to defend the interests of 4 per cent of senior citizens rather than concerning themselves with the problems of many other people in the country who merit their attention far more than this.


Mr. Volpe:: Are they not Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Let me also make the point that the design of the tax back on old age security and family allowances is based on putting different elements of income on the same pre-tax basis, that is, interest income, dividend income, pension income-all forms of income on a pre-tax basis-and then having done that apply the tax back based on that amount of money.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, the minister demonstrates that he does not understand the dividend gross up.
He also said yesterday, and he effectively reiterated it today, that we cannot afford to continue to subsidize seniors in upper income brackets. That is essentially what he has just said again.
This is the same minister who brought in a capital gains exemption, who is proposing massive increases in RRSP limits, who has lowered the top marginal tax bracket. What are all those things except subsidies for upper income people?
He uses this as the basis for ending universality. He is not even trying to protect seniors against inflation.
How does the minister justify to the seniors of Canada this two-faced, discriminatory policy?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there are a large number of allegations in the preamble to that question. Let me just pick out one.
He is talking about the increase in the RRSP limits. The legislation that we are proposing to bring in is going

Oral Questions
to put people who save only through registered retirement plans and people who save only through registered retirement savings plans on the same basis. It is a very equitable piece of legislation. I am sure that the hon. member, when he sees it, will agree with it.
The other part of the legislation which the hon. member is ignoring when he makes that comment is that this legislation is going to shut down a large number of loopholes that have crept in over the years to allow a degree of retirement savings over and above the limitations that were intended to be. The net result of this is that the closing of the loopholes will pay for the equitable elements that will put all people who are saving for retirement on the same basis.
It is good legislation. It is equitable legislation. It is legislation which closes down loopholes.


COMPETITION ACT
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It is about the Imperi-al-Texaco deal.
He will know that the former director of the competition bureau took the rare step of referring this deal to the tribunal. The tribunal chairperson in her decision criticized the former director for being "highly presumptuous if not arrogant" in his handling of the Texaco deal.
Does the minister share the assessment of the chairperson of that tribunal? How do we as Canadians know that the same mishandling of those deals has not occurred in all the other cases which have not been referred to the tribunal?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cal Goldman who took over as head of the competition bureau after the passage of the new Competition Act, after many abortive attempts by the previous government, did an exemplary job of handling that. I find it regrettable that the hon. member would stand up and slander his reputation in that manner.
In terms of the Imperial-Texaco decision, the head of the tribunal, Justice Reid, made certain recommendations. The current head of the competition bureau, Mr. Wetston, said he was looking at them and making accommodations. I understand they will be appearing, I think perhaps even tomorrow, with the restructured deal. I think we ought to let that process which is an excellent process that works well and has been working well continue to its conclusion.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister, although I must say the first part of his answer was sufficiently kinky that it probably qualifies for FBDB funding.
I am quoting to him not my words but the words of the chairperson of the tribunal. If anybody is slanderous in his calumny terms it is her, not me.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: Of course the truth is neither of us is being slanderous, only the minister.
The track record of this competition bureau in protecting Canadians, I think the minister will agree, has been somewhat less than brilliant. In short, it has been an unmitigated disaster. The former director whom he defends referred only six cases to the tribunal. Of course the whole process, as we can see, is completely flawed and is a farce.
I ask the minister: Does he not agree that the time has now come to take a new look at that act in the interest of protecting Canadians and ensuring that all such deals are automatically referred to the tribunal?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member needs a new joke writer.
I find that a peculiar measure. He said that because only six cases have been referred to the tribunal this is axiomatic proof that the act is a failure and the public is not being protected. I do not understand that logic.


Roger Simmons: What about air fares?


Harvie Andre: attempts of the previous government to update it. In fact, it gets rave notices from everybody except that hon. member apparently.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. He will know that the report of the Standing Committee on Transport raised serious questions and in fact repudiated almost nearly every so-called fact used by the Minister of Transport to justify the government's cuts to VIA Rail.
Given this undermining of the minister's credibility by the committee, will the Prime Minister impose a moratorium on the VIA Rail cuts until the royal commission which he has appointed has had an opportunity to review rail passenger services and to report to this House? Will he do that?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will understand that I cannot and would not accept the comments in the preface to his remarks either about the information contained in the report or the minister.
In fact, I think on all sides of the House it is widely recognized that among a group of very competent ministers the Minister of Transport has a very special place.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is easy to give things away and to maintain a series of subsidies. It is difficult to cut back and to provide leadership. You get few compliments and very little gratitude. We are doing this not because it is popular but because it is right, because it is right for Canada.
The OECD has pointed out that the efforts of the Government of Canada are on the right track and will be rewarded by ongoing prosperity. That is what we want for all the people of Canada.


Iain Francis Angus: My supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is again for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. He will know that this was not an opposition report. This was an all-party committee report, adopted by the committee, voted on by Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats who called for a moratorium.
Oral Questions
In that report they questioned whether in fact the environment would be harmed. They questioned whether or not there would be any savings. They questioned whether or not the per passenger subsidy would in fact drop.
Given these concerns, these question marks against the government's decision, will he now take his leadership role like he did when the government attempted to deindex seniors' pensions and announce a moratorium? We are not saying cancel the cuts but are asking for a moratorium until the royal commission has a chance to report, having properly reviewed the whole situation.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the committee chaired by the distinguished member for Annapolis Valley-Hants provided both an excellent report and some very interesting advice. The government considered the advice of the report veiy carefully.
But it is the government's responsibility, having considered the advice, to take decisions and to provide leadership. We have taken those decisions which we firmly believe to be in the national interest, acknowledging as we do that any cut-backs in subsidies impact negatively upon certain groups and cause pain and disappointment. We recognize that.
I hope my hon. friend in turn will recognize that our principal obligation is to restore a degree of sanity to the public finances of Canada. We are in the process of succeeding, having taken the deficit from almost $39 billion down to below $30 billion, and we are well on our way to doing better.


FISHERY
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The federal fish quota report of November 22, 1989 indicates that in excess of 26 million pounds of cod, haddock and pollock will be left unharvested by offshore fishermen in the Scotia Fundy area.
Will the minister finally make a concession to the inshore fishermen and transfer to them the unused excess quota that the offshore fishermen will not be using this year? Will he transfer it to inshore fishermen who have had such a dismal fishery in the last six months?

Oral Questions


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the specific report that the hon. member mentions. But I have made it clear to the offshore companies that there there will be no fish left in the water that are part of the enterprise allocations of the offshore companies, or they will be very hard pressed in the coming year of tight quotas to ask for those quotas to be reinstated.
At the same time I should point out that the good news report I did see today was to the effect that in the Scotia Fundy region fish landings were up this year to $336 million in value over last year for the first three quarters.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister is mixing lobster and scallops in terms of the amounts of fish. We have always had good lobster and scallop seasons until this year when the price went down.
I want to say to the minister that the boats in Gloucester, Boston and Chatham are having record seasons this fall-for example, 70,000 pounds of cod per trip from Georges-while the unharvested quota that the offshore fishermen cannot use in those waters is not being picked up by Canadians. When is the minister's groundfish plan going to help Canadian inshore fishermen instead of helping the Americans?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that the Americans do not fish in Canadian waters north of the Georges Bank line.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Edward Siddon: We take effective enforcement measures to ensure that is the case.
The hon. member knows full well that in the Scotia Fundy region in the first three quarters of this year over-all landings increased in the amount of $336 million compared with the previous year. That ought to be very good news to her constituents.


Mr. Speaker:: A single question from the hon. member for Essex-Kent.


CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the presidents of Heinz, Hunt-Wesson and Campbells confirmed that the free trade deal jeopardizes our
$15 billion agri-food business. They have stated that tens of thousands of jobs and millions of dollars of equipment are on the chopping block.
Will the minister stop this threat and kill the free trade deal before it destroys agriculture in this country?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that the real problem facing the Canadian food processing sector is high input costs for basic produce and for packaging. It is not free trade.
It would be foolish for Canada to put our economy and our future at risk by closing down the free trade agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: There will be a single question from the hon. member for Churchill and a single question from the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.


FISHERY
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Fisheries. According to a report released by his department, groundfish landings in Atlantic Canada have decreased by 9.3 per cent this year. In addition to that there is talk of closure of plants by National Sea Products.
Will the minister, after having a special cabinet committee spend six months on this crisis, finally announce when he is going to do something about this and what direction the government is going to take? After six months with no action, it is time.
Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, but as was improperly reported in The Globe and Mail this morning, over-all fish landings in the Scotia Fundy region alone were up by $336 million, while the groundfish landings were down on average 9 per cent because of the decline in quotas that was necessary this year as a result of the groundfish management plan for 1989.
The groundfish management plan for 1990 will be released at the end of December, after the concluding consultations that I will hold with Atlantic provincial fisheries ministers next Thursday. Other appropriate measures about which he inquires will also be announced in the not too distant future.
December 6, 1989


RAILWAY TRANSPORT
Mr. Allan Koury (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I will repeat in the House the questions I put to the Minister of Transport in a letter dated September 11.
Will the Minister of Transport announce a moratorium on all decisions affecting the railway transportation industry, until such time as the royal commission of inquiry has tabled its recommendations and these have been evaluated by Parliament? Will the Minister of Transport send one or several representatives to the joint meeting on the railway industry, as he was invited to do last summer by Quebec Minister Daniel Johnson?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat for the benefit of the hon. member what I said today to the Leader of the Opposition and others, which is that the Department of Transport does not intend to put a moratorium on the cutbacks at VIA Rail. However, this morning I had a meeting with the Federation des travailleurs du Quebec. I think it was a very good meeting, and I can give Mr. Fernand Daoust the assurance that the Government of Canada will contribute $120,000 to this joint endeavour in Montreal, more specifically concerned with the future of railway transportation, always bearing in mind that the decision on VIA will remain as announced on October 4.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


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's response to several petitions.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Speaker:: Statements by Ministers. The hon. member for South West Nova on a point of order.



POINT OF ORDER


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, last week before the Prime Minister's meeting in Washington, he said in the House that he would raise the lobster issue again. Does the Prime Minister intend to make a speech or statement in the House on his meeting with the president in Washington about the lobster question?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has risen on a point of order under the rubric Statements by Ministers. It most definitely is a question. The minister may wish to respond, but he is not obligated to do so.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to tell my hon. friend that further to our exchange in the House the other day the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I raised this concern about lobsters directly with the President of the United States and the Secretary of State. We hope for an early answer.



INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FRENCH-SPEAKING PARLIAMENTARIANS PRESENTATION OF 4TH REPORT OF CANADIAN SECTION

Mr. Charles DeBlois (Montmorency-Orleans):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the fourth report on the activities of the Canadian section of the International Association of French-speaking Parliamentarians. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all members of the staff that helped prepare this report.
[Editor's note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]

December 6, 1989
Routine Proceedings



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver):: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Members' Business has the honour to present its seventh report.
It is in accordance with the order of reference adopted by the House on Thursday, October 26 and deals with the subject of private members and the draw.
I am tabling the report, but I would also note that no movement for adoption of the report will be made at this time as obviously the House leaders will have to have conferences in regard to the matter.


ELECTIONS, PRIVILEGES, PROCEDURES AND PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-EIGHTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedures and Private Members' Business has the honour to present its eighth report. It is in accordance with its mandate under Standing Order 92(1).
The committee recommends that one item of Private Members' Business be designated as a votable item.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CROP INSURANCE ACT
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-48, an act to amend the Crop Insurance Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Robert René de Cotret: for leave to introduce a bill intituled: An Act to provide for the resumption of certain government services.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. de Cotret, seconded by-


Mr. Tobin:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may have a point. I will hear the hon. member.


Brian Vincent Tobin: If I heard the Speaker ask for unanimous consent of the House, it was not given.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.
On a point of order, the hon. member for Kamloops.


Mr. Riis:: Madam Speaker, just before the vote commenced, our labour critic for the New Democratic Party met with representatives of the union and they were making it very clear that they are quite anxious to get back to the bargaining table.
I am wondering if it is necessary for us to proceed with this legislation with that positive spirit in mind.
\Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis on a point of order.


George Albert Proud: Madam Speaker, I think that it would be good to remind hon. members, especially the one who just spoke, whom I hold in high regard, of course, that it is the second time in a few days that he has risen to comment after a vote and give further explanations.
I am absolutely sure that this is completely out of order and it is the second time that the hon. member, who has a lot of experience in this House, has done such a thing.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, to the point of order raised by my colleague and friend from the NDP, on

December 6, 1989
Routine Proceedings
behalf of the Liberal Party I simply want to say that we welcome the fact that they are now apprised of this issue.


Robert René de Cotret: that the bill be read the first time and printed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Hawkes:: Madam Speaker, since a number of members have risen calling for a vote, I wonder if there might be a predisposition in the chamber to not ring the bells but move immediately to the vote so members can go off to committee, we can have an opposition day and so on.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the suggestion made by the hon. member. Is there unanimous consent to dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions between the parties vis-a-vis Friday of this week, and I think you would find that there would be unanimous consent for me to move the following motion and for it to be adopted, without debate.
I move:
That on Friday, December 8, 1989, at 10 o'clock a.m., following Prayers, the House will hear a statement from the Secretary of State of Canada, followed by replies from spokespersons on the subject of International Human Rights Day and;
That the remainder of Friday, December 8, 1989, be according to Standing Orders governing Fridays, provided that any time taken for the statement and replies be added to the time allowed for Government Orders starting at two o'clock p.m. and the hour for Private Members' Business begin immediately thereafter.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, I have the duty and the honour to present several petitions on the subject of VIA Rail closures, signed by 1,663 persons mainly resident in the constituency of Brant, who call
Routine Proceedings
upon the government to rescind the order to curtail VIA Rail services until after the report of the Commission on National Transportation.
They call upon the government to maintain, upgrade and increase passenger rail service in this country.


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: 
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, at the same time as Transport 2000 in concert with Rural Dignity Canada is rallying in front of Parliament Hill concerning VIA Rail cuts, it is my honour pursuant to Standing Order 36 to table petitions on behalf of my constituents of Parkdale-High Park who also ask this government that no further cuts in VIA Rail be made.
They argue that this would reduce the ability of many Canadians to travel economically within Canada. Rail service is more environmentally sound. The Canadian railroad has bound this country together. It is our heritage. It was part of our Confederation, so they appeal strongly that this government not cut VIA Rail but expand the services with modem state of the art equipment.

Routine Proceedings PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
December 6, 1989


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, I have another petition from Canadians in Iqaluit. I am indeed very honoured to table this one, having spent a week in that part of Canada. They are dead set against the GST. They want it scrapped because even though the government may not put the tax on food, they have to pay for transportation on all the food that they get.
On their behalf, we can upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax. That is from a group of Canadians that I hope the government is listening to.


Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of the member for Lisgar-Marquette, signed by 30 petitioners, and another petition from my riding of Selkirk, signed by 40 petitioners who call upon Parliament to enact legislation which will effectively protect the life of the preborn child without distinction as to stages of development.
Madam Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition from the Knights of Columbus No. 6150 in my riding of Selkirk, signed by 33 petitioners who call upon Parliament to enact legislation which protects human life from conception to natural death.


David Bjornson: Madam Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition signed by 33 people from Oakbank, Dugald and Hazelridge, Manitoba, who call upon Parliament to pass a resolution of the House of Commons urging the Governor General in Council to give full force and effect to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by the exercise of its constitutional power of disallowance with respect to Bill 178 in the province of Quebec.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present 31 petitions bearing the signatures of 2,464 residents of the riding of Saint-Leonard and the Greater Montreal region. The 2,464 signatories call upon Parliament to reject the new goods and services tax which the government plans to
levy as of January 1, 1991. They feel that the tax is regressive and unfair and that it will be an additional source of hardship for Canadian taxpayers.
Madam Speaker, your petitioners urge the government to listen to Canadians and to withdraw this tax forthwith.


Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and obligation to present this petition to the House today which has been certified correct as to form and content by the Clerk of Petitions.
The sum total of 70 signatories from my riding of Sarnia-Lambton call upon the Parliament of Canada to urge the Governor in Council to exercise its constitutional power of disallowance with respect to Bill 178 of the province of Quebec which they believe contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Madam Speaker, it is my honour to present to you pursuant to Standing Order 36 the attached petition requesting that the Parliament of Canada enact legislation that will define and protect the life of the unborn child.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to do that, and that involves, of course, changing or attempting to change the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to protect the life of the unborn child, recognizing the life of the unborn. The petitioners urge us to do just that, so it is my privilege to present to you these petitions from Carleton-Charlotte.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Madam Speaker,
I rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by my constituents. These people are opposed to cutbacks in VIA Rail. They indicate that several rural communities in Canada rely exclusively on rail passenger service and that the tourist industry in Canada relies on rail passenger service.

December 6, 1989

For these and other reasons, they would ask Parliament not to cancel, in whole or in part, rail passenger service in Canada.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present to this House, both certified under Standing Order 36. The first is to draw to the attention of this House the concerns that residents of 150 Mile House in British Columbia have over the tax craziness that this government has in bringing in a goods and services tax.
The petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to reject, among other things, the current proposal for a goods and services tax and to reform the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations.


Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, as well, the government has gone so crazy that residents of Ontario are expressing their concerns about its approach and attitude toward VIA Rail cuts.
These petitioners call upon Parliament to maintain VIA Rail, Canada's national network, to upgrade it with new equipment and to give VIA Rail a sufficient budget to maintain its national mandate for passenger service.


Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: [.Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my honour to present to you two petitions from two communities in my riding, one from Tuktoyaktuk in the westernmost part of my constituency one from and Copper Mine, Northwest Territories in the Central Arctic, objecting to the proposed goods and services tax.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition signed by many people from my constituency, from Madawaska, Cross Lake,
Routine Proceedings
Petawawa, Pembroke, Cobden, Rankin and several other communities.
These people oppose the 9 per cent sales tax and they are asking the question, because the present manufacturer's sales tax has already gone from 9 per cent to 13.5 per cent, what guarantee do they have that this government is not going to increase the 9 per cent goods and services tax likewise. They are simply saying that after 31 increases in taxation by this government since it took power, enough is enough and they do not want this 9 per cent goods and services tax put on by this government.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 on this special day of the rally for rails to present a petition signed by a total of 684 Canadians, the overwhelming majority of whom live in Edmonton and, in fact, 45 of whom live in one apartment block in Edmonton.
These people are calling on the government to maintain VIA Rail, Canada's present national network, to upgrade VIA Rail with new equipment and to give VIA Rail a sufficient budget to maintain its national mandate for passenger service.
We keep submitting these petitions in the hope that the government will listen to the overwhelming majority of Canadians.


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions concerning what my constituents and residents of other ridings consider a major issue.
Your petitioners are against the VIA Rail cutbacks. Given that the Government of Canada has opted for abandoning a number of VIA Rail routes and eliminating thousands of jobs and that railways are the safest and most environment-friendly means of transport, your petitioners humbly call upon the House of Commons to urge the government not to dismantle or reduce Canada's rail passenger services.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan - Similkameen-Merritt):: Madam Speaker, I was afraid I was so far up in the

December 6, 1989
Routine Proceedings
corner that I was not able to be seen by the Speaker. I am pleased to be recognized.
It is my privilege, under Standing Order 36, to present to the 10 petitions signed members of my riding from Osoyoos, Oliver, Okanagan Falls, Kaleden, Summerland and Naramata, with a total of 1,163 names.
These petitioners are all in opposition to the government's proposed goods and services tax. They state that it is an unfair form of taxation because of its lack of regard for the taxpayers' ability to pay and they ask the government to reject the current proposal for the goods and services tax. They also ask the government to cease with the proposal which will shift the tax burden onto ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumption tax instead of through real tax reform.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Questions Nos. 135, 160, 166 and 168.


Mr. Taylor: Is the government prepared (a) to provide the (i) titles (ii) authors (iii) dates of production (iv) content of any studies or other research undertaken by or on behalf of the government or Canada Post on the privatization of all or any part of the postal system or postal operations (b) to make these documents available to Members of Parliament?


Harvie Andre: The Government is aware that the information that could be provided to the Honourable Member was in fact provided at the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations on November 2, 1989, and therefore believes that the Honourable Member's question has been satisfactorily addressed through that process.


[Stage Direction]
Does the government keep records on Seniors living in the constituency of Scarborough West and, if so (a) what number of them are there (b) what is their average (i) age (ii) income (c) what percentage (i) are married (ii) are single (iii) own their own homes (iv) are renters?
Harvie Andre: Statistics Canada reports:
Information on seniors (persons aged 65 years and over) living in the Federal Electoral District of Scarborough West is available from the 1986 Census and is shown in the attached table.


[Stage Direction]
Total	11,190	
Male	4,445	
Female	6,750	
B) AVERAGE AGE		
Total	73.7 years	
Male	72.6 years	
Female	74.4 years	
C) MARITAL STATUS	Number	PercentNow married	5,650	50.5Separated	250	2.2Divorced	335	3.0Widowed	4,110	36.7Never married	855	7.6Total	11,190	100.0D) AVERAGE INCOME, 19851	Total	$13,986	Male	$17,933	Female	$11,154	E) PERSONS 65 YEARS AND OVER LIVING IN RENTED PREMISES1	Number	PercentTotal	3,390	33.8Maintainer (responsible for payments)	2,650	26.4Non-maintainer	740	7.4F) PERSONS 65 YEARS AND OVER LIVING IN OWNED PREMISES1	Number	PercentTotal	6,630	66.2Maintainer (responsible for payments)	3,980	39.7Non-maintainer	2,650	26.4
*
Mr. Wappel: December 6, 1989

Supply
1. The data on income and owner/renter status exclude residents of Scarborough West who live in institutions (such as home for the aged, chronic care facilities, etc.), and the data for average income are based only on those residents who reported earning at least some income in 1985 (over 0).
Note: The data are rounded to the nearest 5 in order to ensure confidentiality. Thus, the sub-totals do not always sum to the total.


Mr. Keyes: Is the government aware of construction at Lester B. Pearson International Airport for the creation of a new runway or runways and, if so, have public monies been spent thus far on that construction and, if so, in what amount?


Benoît Bouchard: No
construction for new runways has been undertaken at Lester B. Pearson International Airport.
Any new runway construction will not be undertaken until after the Environmental Assessment and Review Panel process has been completed.
The only airfield construction works underway at Lester B. Pearson International Airport are to improve existing taxiway configuration.


[Stage Direction]
*
Ms. McLaughlin: Has the government estimated the cost of (a) tearing down a portion of the Federal Building in Whitehorse and refurbishing the remainder with new infrastructure (such as water and heating, among other things) (b) tearing down the entire Federal Building and building a new structure which would meet the needs of the federal government in the Yukon and, if so, what is it?


Hon. Elmer Mac Intosh MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: The estimated cost to:
(a)	tear down a portion of the Federal Building in Whitehorse and refurbish the remainder with new infrastructure is $24,699,000; and
(b)	tear down the entire Federal Building and build a new structure was not considered a variable option since major amounts of leased space are not available. This option would require a program of phased construction over a prolonged period of time. This in turn would create significant tenant disruptions and discomfort.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretaiy have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall all notices of motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Before putting the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, since today is the final allotted day for the supply period ending December 10, 1989, the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the supply bill. In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree that the bill will be distributed now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

['It being 6.21 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).']
Brian Vincent Tobin: That this House condemn the government for its obstinate failure to respond to the continuing public demands of the Canadian people for the maintenance of high quality national passenger rail services.
He said: Madam Speaker, because the time for the opposition day has been shortened by the necessity of other events today, with the Speaker's consent, we hope to share time here in the opposition benches. I will not

December 6, 1989
Supply
be using the full 20 minutes which is available to me. I will be sharing it with my colleague who is sitting next to me.
We have moved this motion today, taking advantage of an opposition day to put down this motion which condemns the government's failure to respond to the Canadian public and its view on VIA Rail for two reasons. One is that we as an opposition party do not intend to allow this issue to die within the walls of Parliament. More important, we want to take advantage of the opportunity of mayors from all across Canada being on Parliament Hill today again.
This is the third or fourth time in as many months that mayors from right across Canada, representing Canada's municipalities, have come to Ottawa to make their case, to continue to fight for VIA Rail. We wanted to show solidarity with those municipal politicians who have continued the fight, both at home and here in Ottawa.
On November 8, not members of the Liberal Party, not members of the New Democratic Party, but members of an all-party committee of the House of Commons, the Standing Committee on Transport, those members who are charged specifically with the responsibility to observe the Estimates of the transport department and the policies of the Minister of Transport and to comment on behalf of parliamentarians on those policies, brought in a report which was tabled in this House. The report called upon the Government of Canada to declare a moratorium on the cuts to VIA Rail which are scheduled to be implemented on January 15. That was on November 8, nearly a month ago.
On the day that that report was tabled, the Minister of Transport, who had it in his hands in the House of Commons, who had all of about 90 seconds to look at it, walked out of this Chamber behind those royal golden robes, out into the foyer of the House, and after 90 seconds of contemplation told the nation's media that he rejected the report.
We have in the House a Prime Minister who is proud to stand on his feet on many occasions and tell us that he takes great personal pride in the parliamentary reform that has occurred in this place. He takes great personal pride, and by implication one would assume, credit for the reform of committees in which all members increasingly express their own best judgment and not be subjected to the view of a party caucus on every given issue, but to really examine with their heart and soul, conscience and best judgment the important issues of the day and to pronounce themselves in the interests of Canadians, not in the interest of particular partisan advantage on any given day of the week. The Prime Minister does this, and he does so frequently.
On a major government initiative, a decision to cut VIA Rail's network by 50 per cent, to lay off 3,000 employees, to say to three million Canadians who rode the rails in 1988 that you cannot ride the rails in 1990, a standing committee of the House of Commons, having members from all three parties, and more important, having a majority of Conservative members, stated that that initiative is wrong. The committee has not thought it through carefully enough. It does not accept the environmental assessment. It does not believe the system can survive with these kinds of cuts. It does not believe that three million Canadians can find other adequate, affordable means of transportation. It does not accept that the environment will not be affected dramatically and negatively. It calls upon the government to declare a moratorium on those cuts.
Did we simply say to declare a moratorium and sit and twiddle our thumbs and wait for some great enlightenment to occur? No. The transport committee went on to say that since you, the Prime Minister of Canada, named a royal commission on transportation, since you, the Prime Minister, say you have confidence in the individuals you have named to this royal commission, since you, the Prime Minister, say we need to have a look at the total integration of Canada's transportation modes and we need a map for the future of transportation in this country, we need to chart a proper course, if you have confidence in these people, refer the question of VIA to them. Give it to the royal commission. Ask the commission to examine the question of rail passenger service and give us an interim report in one year.
In other words, let us turn not partisan minds, nor the vicious hand of the Minister of Finance to this question. Let us look at the long term. Let us examine Canada's position vis-a-vis the position of every other country in the industrialized world. Every other country in the industrialized world is in the business of building modem, efficient, high speed, high-tech, environmentally
December 6, 1989

friendly, mass means of transportation; that is, highspeed trains.
The committee has said it cannot accept that Canada alone among all nations of the industrialized world, Canada alone has to run up the flag of defeat, Canada alone has to make this massive expression of self doubt and lack of confidence in our own ability to run an efficient rail passenger service in this country. The committee has said it cannot accept that.
The report was tabled a month ago. In that month, there has been no concrete, substantial response from the Minister of Transport, nothing from the Prime Minister, no consideration.
In that month, the issue of VIA Rail and the determination of those Canadians who believe in its future has not wavered. The government makes a terrible mistake if it assumes that the issue will go away. In that month, even greater numbers of coalitions of citizens groups have been formed. In that month, the mayors of the corridor cities have come together and formed an organization to fight for VIA Rail. In that month, the mayors of every single town in Atlantic Canada have coalesced to fight for the future of VIA Rail. Why, Madam Speaker? Because the stats speak for themselves. While the cut to the national network is 50 per cent, in Atlantic Canada, 91 per cent of the service will disappear, effective January 15. The best number for the whole region is a 57 per cent cut. Many of the routes are totally eliminated.
What we want the Government of Canada to understand is what the Prime Minister said he understood when he went to eastern Europe. The Prime Minister went to eastern Europe and he said, isn't it a wonderful thing, isn't it a great day in the history of the world and civilization and democracy when the voice of the people echoes so loudly that those who have the power in the governments of eastern Europe not only must listen but must act. This is the true test of democracy.
Is it not tragic and ironic that a Prime Minister would hail the voice of the people in eastern Europe, those who not only insist they be heard but that their voice be heeded, would come back to this country and not only turn a deaf ear on the mayors of every major municipality in Canada, turn a deaf ear on the premiers of every province of Canada, turn a deaf ear on a standing
Supply
committee of the House of Commons that recommended a moratorium, but would turn a deaf ear on the concept of democracy, representative government? This is the Prime Minister who promised us renewed federalism, co-operative federalism and who now faces every single interested group in this country, crossing every single political stripe telling them that he has made a mistake but who refuses to listen.
The Prime Minister and his government are not merely being stubborn or stupid in their decision. The Prime Minister and his government are being arrogant. They are turning away from the future, turning away from our roots the ribbon of steel that built this country and they are turning away from the ribbon of steel that can expand this country going into the future. They are taking us backwards. In so doing, this Prime Minister has said that he shall rely in future upon the tyranny of a majority in Parliament and will no longer hear the voice of people. We cannot accept that, Canadians cannot accept that and we shall continue the fight for the future of VIA Rail and for the future of rail passenger service in this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments? I do understand that the hon. member wants to share the 20 minutes. I also thought that consequently, there would be a five minute question and comment period following each of the hon. members' speeches. Is that agreed?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, with the consent of members and if there is consent and, of course, consent by Madam Speaker, we might hear from the second member and there would be a question and answer period at the end. I am certainly not going anywhere, if that would facilitate the opportunity for as many members as possible to speak in this debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair is quite prepared to go along with the hon. member's suggestion, even though there was one thing that seemed to stand in my mind. The questions or the comments would have to come after the last speaker's speech. Henceforth, I think there should be at this point a five-minute question period on the last speaker's intervention and then after the next speaker's intervention. I think everyone has understood what I meant to say.

December 6, 1989
Supply
I understand there is a question at this end. The hon. member has the floor.


Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, I have listened intently to the hon. member and we have heard some of his musings on this subject before, but I find it passing strange when he talks about the standing committee and its recommendations. Yes, a majority of the standing committee voted for the recommendation, but it was my understanding that it was not unanimous.
I also remember a while back when there was a standing committee of this House which on two different occasions recommended to the government that it find a ways and means of replacing the federal sales tax, better known as the manufacturers' tax. I find in this day and age that both opposition parties have seemingly forgotten that part of it as they seek to build fear into the Canadian public about what is happening regarding the GST.
More important, the member has talked about the mayors of the corridor and how united they are with regard to not wanting to see any cutbacks in the amount of service that VTA Rail now gives in their areas.
I would like to remind the hon. member just what is really happening in the corridor to make sure that people in Canada realize what the facts are in the plan that VIA had tendered and which has been recognized and given the okay by this government.
The Montreal to Quebec run is currently at 48 round trips a week. It is dropping to 21 trips a week. But also at the 48 trips a week, this past year ridership was at 39 per cent. From Montreal to Ottawa, it goes from 29 round trips occupancy.
We get the very same type of rationale on each of those runs. Does the hon. member not realize that there will not be as much frequency of the trains after January 15 but, nonetheless, the capacity for servicing those customers will still be there?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, this is an absolutely amazing question coming from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. The reason it is an amazing question coming from this gentleman whom I usually find well prepared is that it is the Minister of Transport himself, not the opposition, not the New Democratic Party, not those groups in Canada fighting
for the retention of VIA Rail, who said-and I remember sitting in the theatre, and my hon. friend was there the day of the press conference-that three million people who rode the trains in 1988 and 1989 will be displaced in 1990-1991 because capacity was being removed. I believe that my hon. friend forgot that. That is the only explanation, because he is not a member who would want to mislead. I am sure of that. He forgot.
What the hon. member is now suggesting is that if you take away half the trains and you just stuff more people into the same number of trains, you will have the same capacity. However, the government has already admitted that three million people will not ride the trains who had in the past taken advantage of trains. It has suggested that they will be in cars, in trucks, in buses, and in airplanes and that is why the government did a so-called environmental assessment and told us, having done that, there is no problem with having all that additional carbon being burned. There is no problem with the additional congestion at airports. There is no problem with additional congestion on highways that are already blocked, as we would say in Newfoundland, to the rafters.
The question is profoundly surprising but gives me yet another opportunity to point out that this government has not done its homework and, whether by design or by accident, has now given us a phoney rationale for trying to sell these brutal, heartless cuts, especially cuts as they affect our youth, the handicapped and Canada's greatest citizens, our senior citizens, those who have already paid their dues.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague for allowing me part of his time in order to make my comments with respect to what this government is proposing to do with passenger rail service in this country.
My friend commented on the transport committee report, a committee of which he and I are both members and which in its wisdom brought in several recommendations that the government has chosen not to follow.
It is incidental, I guess, that this morning our party produced its report on our proposal and our alternative as to what Canadians can expect with a Liberal government and passenger rail service in our country. Part of the recommendation's dovetail was what my friend and colleague has already said, but let me just comment for a

few moments, if I may, about the Liberal task force report on VIA Rail.
This summer there was a huge undertaking that this side of the House embarked on. We travelled across every section of this country with members of Parliament and with senators to talk to the people of Canada to get first-hand knowledge as to what they thought about this government's plan for passenger rail service in this country.
As a result of that trip and as a result of those excursions into areas that many of my friends from across have not had the opportunity to visit, we have been able to come up with some recommendations that we would like to put forward. One that seems to be predominant throughout all of the discussions is the one-year moratorium that my friend so ably discussed a few moments ago. What that means is just that, to stop everything in its tracks and let us do some studies and further assessments with respect to-


Ross Belsher: Do you want to keep funding it?


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: My friend keeps talking about letting the funding go on. If he would read the last annual report from VIA Rail and reports that came from the transport committee on the unions, he would find that by cutting out VIA Rail, the government in this next year is going to be spending more money in closing it down than it would be spending in operating and subsidizing it. The government would be spending more money by closing down VIA Rail, starting with this fiscal period, than it would be spending by operating VIA Rail as it is operating today.
There was a very shallow report brought in by this government on the environmental assessment, and that simply meant the impact of the closing down of passenger rail service on certain sections in this country and what would happen with the use of our highways and the use of our airways, the additional use of fuel. There was not a proper environmental study done according to the law of the land, and one of our recommendations was that that assessment be done.
We also said that VIA Rail required its own legislation, the VIA Rail act. That would allow VIA Rail to set its
Supply
own rates, rely less on this House, and go out and do its business as a reliable and viable transportation mode in this country. It never had its own legislation, and that is our recommendation.
We also talked at some length about the negotiations that have been allowed to carry on between VIA Rail, which really has no teeth, and CN and CR In particular, we discussed the elimination of costing order 6313, the moratorium on all non-itemized expenses charged by CN and CP to VIA Rail, an in-depth explanation, a question that I have asked several times in the transport committee, of the $142 million being charged to VIA by CNR and CPR and, in addition to that, the $107 million charged in the last annual statement by intergovernmental accounting against the expense structure of VIA Rail.
It was our considered opinion that these questions should be answered. This moratorium would allow those questions to be answered before any further action is taken on the passenger rail service in our country.
We also went into great discussion and had in depth study on analysing what new rolling stock would be needed. The financial statement states that in the last two years VIA Rail has purchased and paid for 72 new engines, as many engines as it needs to operate the passenger rail service in this country. What is needed is passenger rail cars. If I could plug my area, we make magnificent double decker passenger rail cars in Thunder Bay. They should be given consideration, along with other manufacturers in Canada, to provide good passenger rail cars for our passenger rail service in this country.
We do provide passenger rail service and we do finance those passenger rail cars for our friends in the United States, Amtrak. Certainly if we can do it for our friends in the United States we could do it for Canadians.
There is another consideration that we would want to study in some depth in our recommendations, that is, the high speed train in the corridor between Montreal and Toronto and between Toronto and Windsor. We say in our report that that is the area in our country which can least stand any lessening of modes of passenger transportation and we should start on that immediately.

December 6, 1989
Supply
We have also suggested that we look into something which has been looked at several times by both governments, that is, the rail bus which would be used to service remote lines.
The final recommendation that we make is with regard to the remote lines in this country. If my memory serves me correctly, $45 million a year is devoted to serving remote lines. In the answer to one of my questions to the minister and to Mr. Lawless we were told that the remote lines in this country, of which there are nine, were mandated and that they must be served.
I did some extensive law research into that particular question and found out that the remote lines were not mandated. It was suggested at one time when these remote areas in our country were not served by any other mode of transportation that they should be given passenger rail service.
I suggest that the government has not done its homework with respect to these remote lines because, as it stands now, eight of the nine remote lines are serviced by a Department of Transport airport, highways and adequate bus service, and are therefore no longer remote lines. Yet we continue to pay $45 million a year for servicing these areas.
All I am saying is that it is worth further study. Again we go back to the very first Liberal recommendation and the recommendation of the transport committee that we need that year of moratorium, of not doing anything, so that we are able to analyse these particular and veiy strong areas to come up with a plan to maintain passenger rail service in our country.
I can see that my time is getting short. Let me just mention that there is absolutely no wisdom or logic in the way that this government has decided to provide passenger rail service across northern Ontario. I will just leave that. It will be the subject of further discussion at a later date.
Sir John A. Macdonald, Canada's most famous Conservative, had a vision. He had a vision of this country united from sea to sea. When I talk about John A. Macdonald and the railways in this country, I am not talking about the lack of rail passenger service or an airline. What we are lacking is a concept and a vision of the transportation requirements of all Canadians, not just those Canadians living in highly populated areas who
if they get train service or plane service on a less frequent basis will still not be jeopardized great deal.
I am talking about Canadians in areas of our country, in Atlantic Canada, northern Ontario and parts of the west, who when January 15 rolls around will not be able to travel on one very necessary mode of transportation. I am sure that John A. Macdonald did not intend that this country be operated without a viable network to maintain our unity and to maintain our economic basis. It is not fair to all Canadians, and it is not fair to Canada.


Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend talks about the vision of Sir John A. Macdonald and the uniting of this country. I would like to remind my hon. friend that when Sir John A. Macdonald had this vision we did not have a highway system from coast to coast. Airplanes had not even been invented yet. The only viable way for people to travel from one side of the country to another was to use the train. He is quite right in pointing that out.
The percentage of people making intercity trips in Sir John A.'s time was likely 90 per cent or more, whereas nowadays a very low percentage of people make such trips. Why does he not come up to the modem day and recognize the changes that have taken place in our country?
I was glad that he pointed out that there have been capital expenditures made for the new engines and so on, but he failed to point out that the government is continuing to spend money on capital improvement for the electrification of stainless steel cars. That is in the budget of VIA Rail for the coming months.
The opposition would like to make it sound like we have cut off all the funding to VIA Rail and nothing could be further from the truth. We are cutting down on the amount of funding that will be going to VTA Rail because we have a serious problem in our country. I wish the opposition would start to recognize it and try to help sell the idea that we have to get a handle on the overexpenditures of the Government of Canada. That is what this is all about.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Madam Speaker, it is interesting that my friend would mention the absence of some transportation modes during the period that we are talking about. I spent a very interesting evening last Friday night at an institution in Thunder Bay called the Old Fort, which is a true replica of Canada as it was in the late 18th century.

It deals with the fur trading empires of the North West Company and the Hudson's Bay Company.
We went into great lengths and heard a veiy fine history about how people crossed our country at that time by canoe, portage and so on.
The reason I say that is that we have not changed in our spirit, we have not changed in our determination, and we have not changed in our thought. What these fur traders were doing, what we are trying to do today, and what the government is trying to break down is the effort to unify our country, to maintain the east-west structure of our country, and that requires a passenger rail service from coast to coast.
I think Mr. Macdonald did that some 100-odd years ago because he wanted to do away with the natural pull of the north-south influence. He was trying to create an east-west influence throughout our country to make the people in British Columbia as Canadian as the people in Newfoundland.
The government is trying to disintegrate that by disuniting this country, by taking away one of the fundamental modes of transportation that we as Canadians have come to expect as part of our heritage.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate today in the opposition motion which reads:
That this House condemns the government for its obstinate failure
to respond to the continuing public demands of the Canadian people
for the maintenance of high quality national passenger rail services.
I want to say at the outset that this is not a new issue for New Democrats. We have been fighting this issue ever since VIA Rail was created.
In fact, I think it is safe to say that my good friend, the member for Regina-Lumsden, was fighting for rail passenger service even before it came away from CN and CP and into the hands of the Crown corporation.
We did not start fighting for it just this summer. We did not start just after the budget earlier this spring when the reference levels were announced. We did not start fighting for VIA Rail just when the government decided not to purchase the new rolling stock, the transcontinental passenger rolling stock a few years ago. Nor did we start fighting for VIA just when this government came
Supply
into power, when it announced great things for VIA Rail, great studies, task forces, or what have you. We did not start fighting for VIA Rail just when the previous Liberal government decided to cut 20 per cent of the system.
We have been in the fight for a long time because we, as New Democrats, recognize that VIA Rail plays a number of extremely important roles in the economy and the life of this great nation. It is important to Canadians from all parts of the country who see it as their only real option for transportation into and out of their communities. We see it as an economic tool to allow people to live in those smaller communities and commute to the larger. Although I realize that VIA Rail is not designed as a commuter service, it does provide it in a number of sectors. We recognize it as the only safe means of travel that we have in this country, particularly for our elderly and infirm.
When I was in Cape Breton this fall I learned about the tens of thousands of people who go from Cape Breton to Halifax on the train in order to go to the hospital to receive medical care. The road is not an option for them.
New Democrats also see it as an important environmental and energy question. It is an environmental issue because we recognize that in spite of what the government is saying-and every knowledgeable person in this country knows that what the government is saying about the environmental impact is bunk-rail passenger service is one of the most environmentally friendly forms of moving people long distances. It is also the most energy efficient form of moving people long distances.
We also recognize the historical importance of rail passenger service. How many of us had parents who came to this land as immigrants, who arrived by boat in Halifax and were taken by train to Quebec, to southern Ontario, to northern Ontario, to Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia and then on to the territories? All of us have stories about how those people moved at least into the interior by rail.
We also recognize the importance of rail passenger service in terms of an east-west link, an opportunity to see this vast and magnificent land. We recognize the value to tourism. Six hundred million foreign dollars a year come into this country, not for VIA Rail tickets but spent by VIA Rail passengers who come from other lands. This is extremely crucial in Atlantic Canada,

Supply
extremely crucial and growing so in British Columbia and Alberta.
We are not out to save our past. Let us face it; all of us on this side, in this comer, will be more than happy to get rid of that junk that VIA Rail calls trains. It is outmoded. It has been outmoded for the last 15 to 20 years if not longer.
My colleague, the member for Regina-Lumsden, was calling year after year for the government of the day to invest in new equipment; not to waste money repairing old junk but to invest in new equipment.
I think there were seven ministers of transport, Liberal and Conservative, who promised-it wasn't an election commitment or spending commitment; it was a promise-new passenger rail equipment, new coaches, new sleeping cars, new baggage cars: all of the tools needed to turn VIA Rail into a modern rail passenger service. Seven ministers of transport promised that in this House and on the hustings. Two different governments, Conservative and Liberal, promised legislation.
I listened with amazement to my neighbour, the member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon, as he read out this new report from the Liberal Party of what it would do for VIA Rail. I have heard it all before. In fact, if you turn to a report called The Last Straw, the report of the task force on rail passenger services of October 1981 of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, it is almost word for word.
There is a saying: "What goes around comes around". We have said it from this comer time and time again. When in opposition the Liberals and the Conservatives are great friends of VIA Rail, but wait until they get to the government side. When the Liberals were over there they cut 20 per cent of the system and the Tories got on the rails and went from one end of the country to the other condemning the action, condemning the fact that the decision was made by cabinet without public hearings.
What do they do when they get into power? The same thing. Lo and behold, who is travelling across the country now to save VTA Rail? It is the Liberals.
The reality is that when the committee report says that VIA Rail was designed to fail it is the product of the sorry past of the Liberals contributed to the current history of the Conservatives. If members of the Liberal
Party had lived up to their promises to bring in legislation to create VIA Rail and instead of a dollar item in Estimates had given it a legislative mandate and invested the money the money that they promised they would invest in new equipment, the Tories would not be able to do what they are doing today. That is the reality of this issue.
Having said that, the Conservative Government of Canada today has no right whatsoever to do what it is doing to VIA Rail.


Ross Belsher: We have every right.


Iain Francis Angus: The hon. member says that they have the right. They may have the legal right, but they do not have the moral right. That is why since June of this year, when I tabled the first petition in this House, we have had hundreds of thousands of Canadians writing their names on petitions and letters that have been tabled in this House, sent to the Prime Minister, sent to the Minister of Transport, and sent to the man who wears two hats, the president of VIA Rail and CN. These are Canadians who say VIA Rail is important to them.
Well over 300 municipalities from one end of this country to the other-not just cities, towns and villages that are served by VIA Rail but others as well-have called on the government to hold public hearings and to put a moratorium on the cuts. They have appeared before the transport committee. They have appeared in the streets, in Toronto, in Windsor, in Vancouver and on Cape Breton. They appeared outside today, representatives of communities from across this land.
They are saying that VIA Rail is important. They are saying that the seven million people who use VIA Rail are important, that the service they use is important and must be maintained not as a status quo item but as a starting point to build a system which will take us to the year 2000.
It is entirely possible every other industrialized country in the world is doing it. Look at the United States with Amtrak, look at Great Britain with Brit Rail, look at the French rail services, the Japanese, the Italian, the German and the Australian. All major countries are investing in rail passenger services because they see it as the way to go.
December 6, 1989

When the mayors from the corridor were here appearing before the transport committee I think they said it best. Talking about Windsor to Toronto, to Ottawa, to Montreal, to Quebec City, they said: "Imagine if instead of a business person going from downtown Toronto through the traffic, rushing to get to the airport so that he can wait in line for his ticket and then for security, and waiting because of flight delays, he could take a high speed electrified train from downtown Toronto, be in Ottawa in the same amount of time, or even less perhaps, but in a much more sane and less frustrated environment".
Other countries have invested in their future. We are turning ourselves back in time. We are cutting 50 per cent of the service. We are decimating Atlantic Canada. We are destroying the tourist trade in western Canada. We have eliminated, for all intents and purposes, a transcontinental system. Nobody can tell me that three times a week on the northern line is a transcontinental service, particularly if that train is going to be stopping at every flag stop on the way. They will never be able to keep up the schedule and ridership will decline even more.
Once again VIA Rail is designed to fail. Neither this government nor the last one believed in rail passenger services. They talk a good line. The Minister of Transport says that he is doing this to save VIA Rail. Give me a break. That is like cutting off your legs and two arms to save your body. There is not much left. Eventually you wither and die.
This government is doing something extremely wrong to this country. There is no question about it. In responding to a question I put to him today the Prime Minister rejected the transport committee report which only called for some time to allow the royal commission, which was appointed after the fact to study the broad issue of passenger transportation, to take a focused look at rail passenger services.
Keep VIA rolling, even with the junk, for the next period of time. Not necessarily a year like has been suggested, because I think it would take a little longer than that, but I would not want to tie them down. It makes sense to give them the time because seven million people cannot be wrong. They choose VIA Rail. They do not want to ride in their cars or somebody else's car.
Supply
They do not want to ride the bus. They cannot afford or do not want to take the plane.
VIA Rail passenger service is a viable option for them. Yes, it is costing the Government of Canada and therefore taxpayers a significant sum of money. There is no question about that. We on this side have argued long and hard over the years that there are ways of reducing it. The main one was through the investment in new capital equipment to lower the operating costs.
Much of that $5 billion in the last few years has gone to keep that junk rolling. When the temperature in a car is about 95 degrees you have to stop the train so you can crawl underneath the car to turn the valve. That is the problem with the system we have. It was never given a change. It was never given legislation that would allow it to pay only avoidable costs to CN and CP instead of being held ransom by them for a number of years.
Canadians across this country are saying loudly and clearly that they want the government to maintain VIA Rail and to reinvest in VIA Rail. We on this side of the House agree. In closing I would like to move, seconded by the member for Regina-Lumsden:
That immediately following the word "services" the following
words be inserted:
- in particular the continuance of service on the following routes at 1989 levels: Regional Services -Halifax-Yarmouth, Halifax-Port Hawkesbury, Halifax-Sydney, Halifax-Moncton-Saint John, Moncton-Campbellton, Moncton-Edmundston, Montreal-Sherbrooke, Quebec-Mont Joli, Toronto-Havelock, Toronto-North Bay, Cochrane-Kapuskasing,	Kingston-Toronto,
Victoria-Courtenay; Other Services-Montreal-Trois Rivieres-Quebec (North Shore), Montreal-Ottawa-Sudbury-Winnipeg-Calgary-Vancouver (The Canadian), Montreal-Toronto, Winnipeg-Capreol.


Mr. Keyes:: Madam Speaker, I just cannot let a couple of comments made by the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, a fellow member of the transport committee go by, nor some comments made by the member opposite for Fraser Valley East.
First, the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan refers to the government when it was in opposition, screaming and crying about the way VTA Rail, the national passenger rail service in this country, should be. Those members did that when they were in opposition. Members of the Liberal Party of Canada, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, are standing in their place collectively saying that we cannot cut national passenger rail service.

December 6, 1989
Supply
I must remind the member for Thunder Bay-Atiko-kan that this party, the Liberal Party, is made up of new, dedicated, hard working members of Parliament who had nothing to say or do with the previous policy of the previous administration. I want to emphasize that by bringing forward a report released today, a report of the federal Liberal task force on VIA Rail of which I was proud to be a part. In its conclusion it states:
It is not enough to say that we support the VIA Rail system as it currently exists. We believe that VIA Rail has the potential to serve this country without being a continual drain on the resources of the government.
That may in part also answer some of the queries from the member opposite, the member for Fraser Valley East. It continues:
However, this can only be achieved if we have the foresight to invest now in a capital expenditure program to modernize the entire VIA Rail system.
That is to have the vision, to have the foresight, to look ahead. The report goes on:
It is also important to allow the management of VIA Rail the flexibility and responsibility to make business decisions concerning the future of the company. We do realize that this Crown corporation must function within a public policy framework, but, just as responsibility for political decisions must rest with the government, the responsibility for business decisions must rest with the management. Presumably the management was hired to do a job; the government should let them do it.
The Liberal Party task force on VIA Rail went though the process of listening to Canadians. We have done our best to reflect the aspirations that people have concerning our national rail passenger service in this document.
Also, one point that touches a nerve is the situation on the environment. The government likes to talk about the environment and its environmental record, but it is only lip service.
By removing 51 per cent of the trains, taking them off the map of Canada, we are putting more strain and diverting passengers who used to use the train to buses and automobiles, those vehicles which supply this environment with that deadly product, carbon dioxide. Noted environmentalists, including Dr. David Suzuki have said that if for any reason we have to put additional C02 into our atmosphere it is wrong. That is why we call for the moratorium. Let us just take one step back. Let us have a listen to the people, to the mayors, to the premiers and to the environmentalists. Because only a true environmental study in its full capacity, not something cooked
up by the Department of Transport but by the Minister of the Environment-


Mr. Benjamin:: What is the question?


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: It is a comment-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I may have to stop the hon. member. I must say I have a difficult time seeing the relevancy of the hon. gentleman's comments in terms of the intervention just made by the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan. Elowever, he still may want to comment.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I have not heard revisionism like that since the recent events in the eastern bloc. The sins of the fathers are handed down to the sons. There are members of the hon. member's caucus who were around when those cuts were made and who are now front-benchers. One has to accept the reality that in opposition Liberals say one thing and in government they do the opposite.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You are stuck with it, buster. It's going to haunt you for years.


Mr. Dionne:: Madam Speaker, if I could get the hon. member from the NDP to pipe down, I would make a few remarks.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: In 1981 we, as a government, made a mistake when we cut VIA Rail by 19 per cent.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I will have to interrupt the hon. member. There was still some time left for questions and comments. Was the hon. member rising on debate?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: On debate, yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I will have to recognize someone from the government side on debate. It was on questions or comments that I recognized the hon. member.
Is the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur rising on a question or a comment?


Guy H. Arseneault: Yes, Madam Speaker. I just want to make a few quick comments.
It has been said in the House many times by government members that the government has no funds. If it had funds, we would probably have VIA Rail and there would be no problem. I wish to point out to government members, including the Minister of Transport, that in estimates made by the Minister of Finance, if the government took one percentage point off the interest rates, there would be a saving of $1.6 billion in one year.
December 6, 1989

In over four years the saving would be $10 billion. In so doing the government would have enough money to fund VIA Rail as it now exists and even invest in new rolling stock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I would like to tell the hon. member that questions and comments following an intervention by an hon. member should relate directly to the intervention just made.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to say that we are on the subject of VIA Rail and everything that the member referred to, environmental, financial or whatever, is directly related to the remarks of the hon. member.
With all due respect, Madam Speaker, I believe that any comments we have directed toward that hon. member all have to do with that collective pot we know as VIA Rail.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member can of course debate anything that may relate to VIA Rail, which is the subject of today's motion. Following an hon. member's speech, questions or comments should be related directly to the speech that has just been given in the House. It should not be debate by itself.


Mr. Pagtakhan:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With all due respect to the Chair, I think it is essential that we have guidance when you make a ruling such as this. Could you point out, Madam Speaker, if it is permissible, exactly what my hon. colleague said that was not relevant? I thought he was being very relevant.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure the hon. member from Winnipeg does not at this time want to enter into debate with the Chair. I think that later we could look at Beauchesne's and those rules together.
The time for questions and comments is now over. I recognize on debate the hon. Minister of State for Transport.


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Transport)):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to enter into this debate in the House. In listening to the remarks of members opposite in this last hour or so, one would think that we were cutting rail service completely in Canada, that
Supply
there will be no trains left in Canada, that there will be no coast-to-coast service in this country. Nothing is further from the truth.
Yes, we have reduced the services on VIA Rail, and we have reduced them for reasons. They are reasons about which members across the way know. I think it is unfair to the public watching this debate to put forward comments that would make people think that there will be no future rail service in Canada. In fact, that is not true.
This government is committed to building a strong economy, encouraged by incentive and opportunity, an economy which is competitive with the world's trading nations. In order to fully achieve this goal we must create a solid base which will allow our economy to flourish in the coming years.
Measures which seek to control the deficit and reduce the national debt are an essential element of this foundation for the future, an element about which members opposite do not seem to have any concern whatsoever. Equally, measures which seek to establish a sound fiscal framework to sustain continued economic development are also essential to this purpose.
These objectives are reflected in this government's commitment to a sound transportation policy. Transportation is and always will be at the heart of our nation's economy. That is why we have undertaken to provide Canadians with a safe, effective and efficient transportation system. This commitment is the core around which our policy of economic regulatory reform was built.
With the advent of free trade the role played by the transportation system in our economic development has become increasingly vital. As we enter into the next decade and the next century, a cost effective transportation system is essential if Canada is to preserve and enhance its position in world trade. In order to meet this challenge we must make the best use of each mode of transportation: air, rail, marine, car, truck and bus.
Continued subsidization of a mode of transportation which costs more and more and is used less and less is not a sound investment in our future, particularly when that investment is being made with the Canadian taxpay-

Supply
ers' money. That is exactly the situation we are facing with respect to our national rail passenger network.
VIA Rail subsidy rose to an unprecedented $641 million in 1988. This translates into an average subsidy of $100 per passenger. We are asking all Canadians to pay this subsidy, but only 3 per cent of the travelling public uses this mode of transportation. Canadians have demonstrated their preference for other modes of transportation. With a market share of 84 per cent, the automobile is clearly the mode of choice.
Contrary to all of the rhetoric which has been bandied about in recent months, VIA Rail's performance is worsening, not improving. While revenues did increase by 13 per cent, or $26 million in 1988, costs increased by 15 per cent, or $94 million, with the result that government subsidies to VIA increased by $68 million. As you can see, Madam Speaker, prompt action had to be taken to stop this drain on the public purse.
Reducing the subsidies to VIA Rail was a difficult decision to make. We had a system that was expensive, ineffective and inefficient.
Many other countries are making decisions concerning rail passenger services based on their unique demographic and economic realities. The government's decision is based on Canadian economic and demographic realities.
Our decision has to be considered in light of the fact that we have the second largest country in the world with one of the smallest populations. VIA service must be consistent with the realities of the density of the Que-bec-Windsor corridor, and also the different needs of the Atlantic Canadian and western Canadian regions.
Contrary to the wording of the motion before us today, I believe that we have taken the action necessary to ensure the future of VIA as a national, affordable and sustainable rail passenger network.
Since making this announcement we have taken every possible opportunity to discuss with Canadians the importance of this decision. All Canadians are aware that we must reduce the burden of the debt. Canadians have
been asked to tighten their belts, and VIA cannot be an exception.
This government has distinguished itself during the past four years through fiscal responsibility and judicious allocation of federal financial resources. When money is scarce, it is spent where it is most needed, where it is most likely to produce results.
I invite members opposite and, indeed, all Canadians, to look at the facts and to judge for themselves the validity of the fiscal realities under which we currently labour. If we had to make difficult decisions, it is that in 1984 we inherited a legacy of debt. This is a legacy which I personally do not want to pass on to my children or to their children.
The difficult choices that we have been forced to make have allowed us to reduce the deficit and to bring the rate of inflation down to a more acceptable level-not a 22 per cent interest rate and the 13, 14 and 15 per cent unemployment rates that we had when the opposition was in government.
Responsible fiscal management, combined with sound economic policies, have paved the road to a rate of economic growth which ranks among the highest in the industrialized world. As responsible Canadians we owe it to our children to leave them with every opportunity for development that we ourselves have enjoyed.


Mr. MacLellan:: Madam Speaker, I would just like to respond to what the minister said about the debt that was inherited. The debt is much worse now than it was when this government came to power in 1984.
I also want to mention the fact that this government cannot absorb-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Come on! The fact is that this government just does not care. What it is doing is nickel and diming the Canadian public and letting the chances for true savings in spending go by the wayside because it may rock the boats of some of its elitist friends in big business.
So what does the government do? It picks on the people and the regions in this country which can least afford it. It allows a man like Mr. Lawless to take over as president of VIA Rail so that he can set up exactly what he wants to do and thereby create the case for CN to
December 6, 1989

Supply
reduce its activity in the regions of this country. CN is now well on the way in Cape Breton, eastern Nova Scotia-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply pursuant to Standing Order 81(15).
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the members.


['Call in the members.']
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Mr. Gauthier:: Madam Speaker, in the interests of saving time, I think you would find there is unanimous consent for the House to apply the vote taken on the amendment to this motion, but if the government insists in reverse, we would not mind that at all.


Miss Grey:: Madam Speaker, I chose not to vote on the amendment, but I would like to register a yea vote on this main motion in the interests of saving time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the suggestion made by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The vote of the hon. member for Beaver River will be added to the yeas.


['The vote of the hon. member for Beaver River will be added to the yeas.']
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, immediately before proceeding to the rest of the votes that are normally taken at this point, I wish to advise the House that the business for tomorrow at 11 a.m. will be Bill C-49.



Robert René de Cotret: That Supplementary Estimates (B), 1989-90, laid upon the table Wednesday, December 6, 1989, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. de Cotret thereupon moved that Bill C-50, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1990, be read the first time.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.
Mr. de Cotret thereupon moved that Bill C-50, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1990, be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Carried on division.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: We would like to have the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The bill was
distributed earlier in the day by consent.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, the bill may have been distributed but we did not get it, and until we get it we are not ready to deal with this bill.
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Pages will be distributing copies of the bill immediately. It was done earlier, by unanimous consent. I thought the bill had been distributed to all hon. members.
I am advised that the bill has been distributed. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mrs. Champagne in the chair.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Shall Clause 2 carry?
The hon. member for Windsor West on a point of order.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Chairperson, I want to ask the President of the Treasury Board the customary question. I hope he can give us the assurance that this bill is in the usual form and does not depart therefrom.


Robert René de Cotret: The bill is the same as the bills for other Supplementary Estimates in previous years.


George Albert Proud: Madam Chairman, on a point of
order.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The hon. member for Saint-Denis, on a point of order.


George Albert Proud: Madam Chairman, the matter I am about to raise has been raised for many years in the House. When we get a bill of this kind which is always in English alphabetical order, members who, like me, like to be able to work in French, are always switching from page to page because there is no alphabetical order in French.


An Hon. Member:: Right on, Marcel!


George Albert Proud: I really wish that in future, and I don't intend to make an issue of it today and prevent consideration of this bill-after all, I think that I am a fairly reasonable person-I believe the Department of Justice, and I see the Minister of Justice who seems to agree, might be able to provide for the requisite accommodation in this bill so that-I realize it is easier to go by alphabetical order in English. But for instance, if I am looking for "Affaires exterieures" I have to-

Supply

If you would like, I may make that point in English, if you want me to. It is just to see if, once in a while, members are sensitive enough to understand what many members have to go through all the time.

So without getting into any kind of a debate today, Madam Chairman, I hope that as of today we could take a considered look at this problem and perhaps one of these days something will be done about a problem that was often raised in this House well before my time.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The point just raised by the hon. member for Saint-Denis has been raised previously in the House on many occasions. I agree that it would be appropriate if the minister responsible would pursue the matter and find out whether something can be done about responding to the request made by the hon. member for Saint-Denis and by other members as well. I am sure the minister would like to look into this as soon as possible.

Shall Clause 2 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 3 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 4 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 5 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 6 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the Schedule carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the preamble carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the title carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Robert René de Cotret: that the bill be concurred in.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert René de Cotret: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 6.21 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.28 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, December 7, 1989