1989-06-14

Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, the whole world is watching as the appalling events in China continue to unfold.
Chinese students in Canada are suffering a double burden. In continuing to maintain solidarity with their colleagues who fought tyranny in Tiananmen Square, they also fear for their families in China who may be marked for reprisals because of such student protests here.
Calls come daily from Canadians nation-wide who insist on concrete government action. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has asked for suggestions on such action.
I call on the Government to immediately offer visas for Chinese refugees with family members currently in Canada, and further to offer asylum to any citizens condemned by their own government for their stands on liberty and freedom of expression.
The people of Canada do not wish to stand idly by while justice is mocked in China.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) felt compelled to go to Saskatoon to again assure farmers that the Tories are standing behind them. Farmers have heard that so often they are starting to
wonder what exactly the Government is doing behind their backs.
Specifically, farmers need to know how much money they can each expect from the drought payment and when the cheques will be in the mail.
They also want to know if the appeal boards will have a mandate to correct the inequities caused by the archaic township-based computer program that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Mazankowski) insists on using. This program has already gained the reputation of being one of the most inept ever administered by any government. It would no doubt be a big hit as a comedy of errors, however, these are real people who need real money to pay real bills.
Unfortunately, bankers will not accept hot air, not even hot air from the Prime Minister.


FISHERIES
Right Hon. John N. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, once again the Conservative Government is treating the interests of British Columbia with disdain. It refuses to listen to the legitimate concerns of 25,000 fishermen and fish-processing workers in B.C.
This week, the Fisheries Council of B.C., the United Fishermen and Allied Workers and the Native Brotherhood of B.C. have all come to Parliament to point out the inevitable loss of jobs which will occur because our Government is willing to allow the United States complete access to our raw fish.
Of course, thanks to the Conservative trade deal with the United States, we have lost our primary remedies to respond to the unfavourable GATT ruling. The Government could at least constructively consider the B.C. industry's proposal that Canada implement regulations to ensure that our country's needs for fish are filled before any unprocessed fish is allowed to leave Canada.

The B.C. concerns about taking additional measures to halt foreign over-fishing of Canadian stocks and about relief programs for fishermen and shore workers deserve better than accusations by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) about scare-mongering.
People who are losing their jobs deserve fair treatment, not insults.


TERMINATION OF CEDIP GRANTS
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, the abrupt termination of CEDIP grants to the oil and gas industry is unfair. Not only was the industry not consulted or even warned about the impending end of this popular program, but the cancellation flies in the face of the Government's own legislation which requires that six months' notice be given to the industry before the program would end. No notice was given.
In fact, assurances were made by the Minister to me and to the industry mere days before the Budget that the program was safe from budget cuts.
The Government has stated that grants will still be processed if companies have legal documentation proving that before April 26 they had intention to drill.
The oil and gas industry is a business where deals are made on the basis of a firm handshake. Certainly, legal documentation follows, but a deal is a deal and to oil men a handshake is as good as their signature on a contract.
We are all concerned about the national debt. Few in the industry would argue that the CEDIP program has not been generous and worth while. Everyone recognizes that the program spent more than originally forecast. Yet, this is a matter of fairness. I and the members of the industry only seek fairness. I certainly hope that latitude will be given for applications considered under the grandfather clause.


USE OF BANNED SUBSTANCES TO ENHANCE PERFORMANCE
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, we all applaud the fact that Ben Johnson has admitted to the Dubin Inquiry his use of banned substances and his determination to run again for Canada. We hope that this will make a contribution towards changing the direction of Canadian sport, and will contribute to correcting the scandal that took place in Seoul last year.
I note that the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mr. Charest) is finally beginning to backtrack from his arbitrary actions taken in Seoul last year. Without prejudging the case, it is important that we all wait until the Dubin Inquiry has handed down its recommendations. But in that regard, I want to advise the House that last night I was able to present to Mr. Justice Dubin the views of a particular group of Canadians who were affected by this, namely, the young people. George J. Elementary School in my riding has issued a bill from their own model Parliament under the introduction of the "Right Hon." Chris Sandham. These views and the views of all Canadians must be taken into account in this sad chapter of Canadian history.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, thinking and concerned Canadians continue to express shock and disbelief at the reaction of the Chinese Government towards the peaceful demonstration of students and democratic advocates. Parliamentarians from both sides of this House have expressed their condemnation of these actions.
Several hundred of my constituents have joined other Canadians in an attempt to express their grief and their outrage. In a telegram to the Secretary of State of External Affairs (Mr. Clark), they say:
June 14, 1989

We cannot stand in silence while we watch the massacre of innocent people in their quest for freedom. Ib say nothing is to allow the continuance of oppressive acts of violence. This is not acceptable. We must show that we care.
Canadians do care, Mr. Speaker, and this message must be communicated by this Parliament.


LINGUISTIC MINORITIES
[Stage Direction]
20TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT AND THE 26TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE COMMISSION ON BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURAUSM
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, this week we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Official Languages Act. It is also the 26th anniversary of the B&B Commission.
Let us take this opportunity to restate our commitment, that of all political parties in this House, to the fundamental principles of justice and equality for linguistic minorities throughout Canada.
The quality of services to these minorities should be maintained and improved. Even today, for example, Franco-Albertans have to fight in the Supreme Court for their basic right to manage their school boards.
The specific characteristics of Quebec, a distinct society, must also be recognized and the collective rights of Francophones in Quebec must be respected.
Mr. Speaker, this is a week of celebration, but also a week to restate our commitment to justice and equality for linguistic minorities throughout Canada.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I accuse the NDP Member from Victoria with attempted political interference with the RCMP because of his-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but there is a clear rule that statements cannot be used to make a charge against a Member.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, recently the Delta Senior Secondary School and the Recycling Council of B.C. conducted a waste analysis study attempting to determine what materials make up the school's waste system in a typical day, and how best to structure a school recycling program.
Garbage was divided in 14 recyclable materials by student garbologists, leaving only what could not fit into these categories as true garbage. The waste analysis showed that the recovery of recyclable materials can substantially reduce the amount of waste generated at the school. The. Recycling Council of B.C. will be able to take the data gathered in this study to educate other schools on the benefits of school recycling.
The quest for a cleaner environment is one that must be conducted at all levels, and nowhere will these efforts have more impact than at the local level. Like residential curbside collection programs, institutional recycling programs will play a major role in reducing our waste stream and recovering valuable materials.
I commend the students, staff and faculty of Delta Secondary School for their initiative and the example they have set for others.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, the potato industry represents a major economic sector of Prince Edward Island, with 80 per cent of production in the seed potato industry.
Producers are burdened by increased costs of production placing them at a definite disadvantage in the Canadian market-place.
Inspection fees, Mr. Speaker, are a burden to Island potato producers. These inspection fees, as regulated by the Government, are another financial assault against the agricultural industry of my province. The primary producers of Prince Edward Island addressed this Government on May 29 with a strong voice. The Government must stop this unfair, unreasonable and discriminatory tax against Island potato producers.

June 14, 1989
Oral Questions THE ENVIRONMENT


DISPOSAL OF GARBAGE IN HALTON REGION
Mr. Garth Thrner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, my riding is choking on garbage.
In the Halton region every bag of garbage is exported to the United States. It goes to an incinerator in New York State, an incinerator which does not meet pollution control standards in effect in Ontario. As a result, air pollutants find their way back across the border. Also, taxpayers pay $1 million a month to export this waste.
Meanwhile, the search is on in many municipalities in Halton-Peel for a new landfill site. Millions of dollars have been wasted as communities sue each other over the proposed location of one new dump. This is, of course, environmental and economic insanity.
The greater Toronto area has a garbage crisis, and I urge the federal Government to work with regions and the local municipalities to find a solution. Let us establish a super waste management agency. Let us flex the federal muscle and break the impasse which has resulted in this embarrassing export to the United States of our own garbage.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, before dawn on June 13, a large group of 40 Mounties invaded a small native reserve east of Quebec City. The RCMP drove to the community of Les Escoumins armed with search warrants, raided the Band office and retrieved boxes of documents, files and computers. The Solicitor General must explain to this House what the rationale was for this startling invasion into one of the smallest reserves in Canada.
Later another squad of police arrived with helmets, clubs and used tear gas on the reserve members. What could justify this drastic action of the RCMP at the reserve where there were as many authorities charging the community as there were residents living there?
Will the Solicitor General conduct an investigation into the Mounties' actions and assure Members of this House that this type of action was indeed justified?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, may I put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister?
While we approve on this side of the House the Government's decision to recall our Ambassador to China, and I have high personal regard for Ambassador Earl Drake, it is very clear that the Chinese authorities so far have not listened to or responded to world protest.
Will the Prime Minister haul in the Chinese Ambassador to Canada and tell him personally that the Chinese Government's decision this week to hunt down those peaceful student demonstrators and treat them as war criminals is nothing short of ruthless and vile totalitarian repression?
Will the Prime Minister also tell the Chinese Ambassador personally, in the bluntest terms, that Canadians have the deepest empathy for the Chinese people and students but no sympathy at all for the police state tactics being used in such brutal fashion against the students.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a constructive suggestion, in light of the ongoing repression in China, that the Ambassador be called in.
I will certainly communicate to him the opinion of the Government of Canada on these matters and I will underline, as the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and other Members of this House have, that the position we are taking is emphatically not an anti-China position. We are seeking to encourage those forces of openness and democracy in China, and to protest in the strongest possible terms the repressive actions being undertaken by their Government.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF RESOLUTION WITH THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Secretary of State for his constructive answer. I must also say that we respect the Prime Minister's decision to support any action that the United Nations Security Council might take, but I do not believe that is enough.
Will Canada take the initiative of asking first Mikhail Gorbachev to take a stronger position against the Chinese Government, and with the support of the Soviet Union, take the initiative of confronting China openly at the United Nations? That is, will Canada take the initiative of presenting a resolution condemning the action of the Chinese Government and trying to convince other countries at the United Nations General Assembly to support this initiative and this resolution?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows very well, the Canadian Government has played an active role with other countries in taking concrete measures that can have an impact on the Chinese Government's decisions. I am interested in the suggestion by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that we might encourage the Soviet Union. We are certainly thinking of having discussions with all countries that might be encouraged to take common action.
I believe that the Leader of the Opposition is not looking for empty gestures, or actions that can have no impact, and neither am I! But, in the United Nations or through bilateral talks with other countries, we hope to find ways to put pressure on the Government of China.


GOVERNMENT VIEWS ON WORLD TRADE SANCTION PROGRAM
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the Secretary of State is perfectly correct. At this stage we have been talking about the pressure of world opinion and moral suasion. That was certainly the purpose of the unanimous resolution adopted by the House of Commons. That would be the
Oral Questions
purpose of a resolution introduced by Canada at the United Nations.
Given the Chinese Government's refusal so far to listen to any reason on this issue, there may be one additional area that Canada would like to explore with other nations around the world that might have a little more clout with the Chinese authorities. What are the views of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Government on consultations with other countries about the possibility of moving toward a concerted world trade sanction program against China?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would think that it may be premature on June 14 to start detailed discussions about anything of that kind.
We are, as the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows, involved in consultations with a number of other countries regarding the most effective means that might be open to us. I told the House last week, I believe, that the Government of Canada was prepared to re-examine the range of our programs with China. Indeed, given the importance of this matter, we are convening a national round table of Canadians expert in Canada's relations with China and in the situation in China to be sure that the actions we take will have the most enduring and constructive long-term effect.
There are some actions that it might be appropriate to bring to the attention of the House that, in their way, can have some real impact. One of those is the decision of Radio Canada International, which I want to commend, which has moved up by ten months its capacity to broadcast into China. Broadcasting will begin on June 20 and will provide a counter to the very extensive and blanketing program of propaganda being issued in China by Chinese authorities.


HOUSING
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Housing. In a nation-wide Decima survey conducted last September for CMHC, 58 per cent of the people polled said that the amount of money required for a down payment on a house was too high to handle. As well, 53 per cent of

June 14, 1989
Oral Questions
them also felt that finding a house that they could afford to buy was a major problem
On June 9, the Royal Bank of Canada confirmed that things have become so bad that even a starter home is now out of reach for millions of Canadian families. In Vancouver, it takes more than 65 per cent of a household's income to cover the cost of an average starter home. In Montreal it is nearly 50 per cent, and in Toronto it takes up to more than three quarters of a family's income.
The Government has known about this developing crisis for at least nine months and still has not lifted a finger to relieve the situation. What does the Minister plan to do now, not next month or next year, to help Canadians who want to buy a home but find the prices too insanely high to afford?


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the affordability situation across the country varies greatly. Certainly in places like Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal there is a very substantial affordability situation. In places like Calgary, where I visited yesterday and Edmonton the day before, the situation is not as severe as it is in those other places.
We have some broad national policies that we are trying to apply on a very targeted basis to see if we can assist this. At the moment I am trying to develop with provincial Ministers and the municipal officials some tripartite committees in order to target our programs, to improve the affordability situation.
We have some other programs as well that we are looking at for in the immediate and long run. I trust that all of these will help the affordability situation before too long.


AFFORDABILITY OF HOUSING
Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, let me remind the Minister that in this same government survey, 58 per cent of Canadians want the Government to do something about housing. The fact is that the Government has done absolutely nothing for housing affordability. In fact, it has done the opposite. It has increased interest rates, it has higher taxes on construction materials and now has a goods and services tax. It has a direction from the Minister to CMHC that says-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member could put his question.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: It just sets off alarm bells. The alarm bells have already been set off. Can he tell Canadians-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, enough of this mumbo-jumbo he keeps spouting off in the House, I want to ask the Minister to tell us what Canadians can expect from-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Oshawa.


FISHERIES
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. On November 17, 1987, in British Columbia, the Minister said in regard to the processing of fish in that province: "I give you my assurance that those jobs will be saved". The next day in the House, when I asked the Minister a question about the same concerns of British Columbians in this sector, he said to me: "The Government will not allow jobs historically established to be threatened".
As the Minister knows, regulations subsequently tabled by himself and the Government have led, as the documents state themselves, to a reduction in supply of fish for processing, resulting in precisely the loss of jobs that the Minister said would not occur.
Will he now admit that he misled the people of British Columbia about these jobs and, if so, what does he plan to do about it?
Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans): Mr. Speaker, in fact, the circumstances are to the contrary. It is the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party who is misleading the people of British Columbia because no jobs have been lost and there is no proof that any jobs will be lost. Indeed, the new landing regulations which this Government has enacted to replace those which the international trading community said were discriminatory, unfair and illegal measures, will protect, enhance, and reinforce the opportunities available to our Pacific Coast fishing industry.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia in particular will know what utter nonsense the Minister just stated.
June 14, 1989


EXPORT OF UNPROCESSED FISH
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister not simply to rely on what we say on this side of the House. One of his own Members, the Member for South Shore, said recently in reference to the export of unprocessed fish from Nova Scotia, which the Minister for International Trade has acknowledged is leaving at a rate of 80 million pounds a year, is costing Nova Scotians 1,000 jobs. If the export of that unprocessed fish from Nova Scotia is costing 1,000 jobs, why does not the same reasoning apply to British Columbia? Are we not getting the same proportionate loss of jobs? Why does the Minister not honestly admit it?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, under the previous discriminatory regulations which were not GATT consistent, there was no protection to ensure that our Chinook, coho and chum salmon would be brought to Canadian shores, thereby providing additional opportunities for that fish to be processed in British Columbia. The new regulations ensure that all five species of British Columbia salmon and herring shall be brought to shore, and landed at Canadian ports. We expect, therefore, that it will be processed there.
I might add that if we do not intend to play in the international trading arena by exporting our fish products, 80 per cent of which go to export, we will surely not have the jobs that the Member is so concerned about.


John Edward Broadbent: There is a vigorous defence of Canadian interest. Only a Conservative Minister would say that processing requirements to keep Canadian jobs was discriminatory.


IMPACT ON PROCESSING JOBS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade who did admit that when it comes to Nova Scotia we were losing some 80 million pounds of unprocessed fish last year.
If that is the case, does the Minister agree with his own Member who said that this is costing us 1,000 jobs a year in Nova Scotia? If so, would he admit that the agreement he signed on behalf of the people of Canada, which has resulted in the kind of regulations his colleague has
Oral Questions
referred to and means the loss of processing jobs, means that we are losing at least 1,000 jobs a year in Nova Scotia every year as a result of this incompetence and an equivalent amount in British Columbia? The bottom line is that the Government has given up Canadians' rights on both coasts to process their own fish.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party is a ferocious supporter of the GATT system. Under the GATT system in 1986-


An Hon. Member:: Why did you not appeal it?


John Carnell Crosbie: -the United States made a complaint that Canadians would not permit salmon and herring to be sold to their processors while the Americans were permitting salmon to be sold to Canadian processors.
As a matter of fact, 15 per cent of the salmon processed in British Columbia is purchased from American fishermen.


An Hon. Member:: Fifty per cent.


John Carnell Crosbie: Fifteen per cent. The United States Government launched a protest and asked for a GATT panel and that panel ruled against Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: Why did you not appeal it?


John Carnell Crosbie: There is no appeal. The Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party is abysmally ignorant in this as in so much else. There is no appeal.
We have replaced the offensive regulations with a new set of regulations requiring salmon and herring to be landed and inspected for management and conservation purposes in British Columbia. The hon. gentleman should be supporting that and helping us to defend those, not with these cheap silly attacks in the House of Commons.


TRANSPORTATION
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, my question is for the Minister of State for Transport.
The VIA Rail business plan which is due this month but is already being implemented, with severance packages being discussed and cancelling of bookings on

June 14, 1989
Oral Questions
trains, is supposed to detail how VIA Rail will operate within the budget cuts.
Second, a far more important study has been done which details the extensive VIA Rail study and points out just exactly where the corporation will be going to the year 2000.
In light of that and given that the business plan will destroy VIA, will the Minister of Transport or the Government commit on the floor of this House to release the complete VIA study before VIA Rail is destroyed?


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (TVansport)):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member has mentioned, the business plan from VIA will be in our hands at the end of June. When we receive that plan, we will look at it and all other studies and will make the decisions necessary at that time.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, the detailed study which has been commissioned gives a lot of information and new novel ideas as to how to maintain rail passenger service in this country. By waiting and allowing the business plan to be implemented before that study is released or looked at will cause VIA Rail to be out of business.
Would the Minister please confirm that this Government is not interested in the facts, is not interested in saving VIA Rail, but is out to destroy that rail company?


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. We do believe in the facts and that is why we do not make decisions until we get them.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Communications, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
I am informed that an internal CBC memo, dated May 29, reveals that its Canadianization program has been put on hold for this year. Even before the massive cuts announced in the Budget take effect, the CBC has had
to abandon its goal of 95 per cent Canadian content in prime time. Also, just last year in June, a communications policy document stated that the Government supports Canadianization at the CBC.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister the following questions: Does this Government still support Canadianization at the CBC? If so, will the Deputy Prime Minister ensure that the CBC has sufficient funds to allow Canadianization to proceed?


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, of course the Government supports the objective of Canadianization of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I believe that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as befits any arm's length agency, is conducting internal studies as to what its priorities will be in light of the Budget.


APPOINTMENT OF NEW PRESIDENT
John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. It is pretty clear that despite support of Canadianization the Government has not provided the funds so that the CBC can live up to its mandate.
Will the Minister at least provide support to the CBC in this time of crisis at the corporation? Will he tell Canadians this afternoon that he will recommend to Cabinet that it appoint a new CBC president before Mr. Juneau steps down next month?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that there will be a vacancy to fill until the president and chairman of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation takes his retirement. The Government is well aware that that vacancy is about to occur and of course is making the appropriate plans.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: dians and prior to the release of the environmental impact on public health of low level flights contained in the impact study of such activities in Labrador?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is not accurate in his statement. That is not unusual.
The release was not made to the United States. The request for low level flying and the necessary training was made by the Binational Command of NORAD, the North American Air Defence, which the Hon. Member knows has a responsibility for the defence of North America. That request was made in 1985.
Environmental impact studies have been concluded since that time. There were 53 recommendations made by a private company from Vancouver, Environmental Sciences. Out of those studies, we were able to comply with 53 of the 54 recommendations. We have consulted with communities in both the Northwest Territories, Alberta, and British Columbia.
Therefore the time to make the announcement is now so that flights can take place, which will be four times a year. This is consistent with flights that already take place in Quebec, New Brunswick, and northern Ontario.


CONSULTATION WITH WESTERN CANADIANS-MINISTER'S POSITION
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. It is interesting that most jurisdictions in the United States will not allow or will not agree to these low level flights.
The mass low level bomber runs pose a risk to birds, wildlife, pilots, and the public. Three U.S. B-lBs crashed in the 14 months between September 1987 and November 1988, including one to a bird strike on a low level flight, killing three officers on board. The B.C. route is overhead 19 Indian bands who have not been consulted. Some of the aircraft will be armed, as was confirmed to me by the former Minister of National Defence.
Does the Minister not believe that Canadians in western Canada have a right to know in advance, have a right to be consulted, and a right to say no to these offensive low level flights?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I find it very strange that members of the
Oral Questions
New Democratic Party first of all say that we should remove our troops from Europe, that we should get out of NATO in support of that alliance, and now suggest that we should not share the burden of the defence of the North American continent.
The consultations that took place as well as the environmental impact study have been done since 1985. We are talking about the air space in Canada and the training of Canadian pilots to defend Canada and North America.
The discussions that took place over the last four years show that we have charted a route through consultation and meetings held in at least the Northwest Territories, Alberta, and British Columbia regarding routes 910 and 920.
Those routes can be altered if it is shown that there may be jeopardy. These routes are flown four days in a 365-day period. The routes are not harmful to any environment, including the human environment.


THE BUDGET
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Yesterday, we had a clear contradiction between the statement of the Mounties and the statement of the Minister of Justice about the role of the Minister's officials in dealing with the examination of the budget leak.
The Mounties said quite clearly yesterday morning that these officials are their lawyers and that federal officials gave them direct advice about whether or not to lay charges, so much so that they cloaked the advice in solicitor-client privilege.
The Minister, on the other hand, claims that his officials were brought in only at the request of provincial officials at Queen's Park and only for normal consultations with the provincial officials. Which version is correct?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, all of this was laid out in an aide-memoire which was given to the Leader of the New Democratic Party some 10 days ago. In that aide-memoire it states very clearly: "Law officers of the Department of Justice became involved in this matter in the normal course as legal advisers to the Government and the RCMP".

Oral Questions GOVERNMENT RESPONSE


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, why, as recently as yesterday, did the Minister say that the officials were brought in at the request of Queen's Park?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Simmons:: Thke a deep breath, Doug.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: If one reads on a little further in the aide-memoire which was made public, one will see: "The RCMP consulted Ontario Crown law officers as to what charges were warranted. During these consultations it was agreed that there should be consultations on certain matters between the Ontario Crown law officers and the Justice Department".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare who will know that several hundred Canadians paid into the Canada Pension Plan who subsequently left their employment owing to a previous disability but who have had their applications for a Canada Pension Plan disability pension denied because their applications failed the so-called test of recency.
Will the Minister consider amending the Act in order that these deserving and needy disabled Canadians can have the pensions to which they are entitled in spite of their failing to meet the test of recency?
In other words, these delays are occasioned in part as a result of the very disability which caused them to leave their jobs. Would the Minister please indicate whether he can address the situation?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I know that this has been a matter of concern for the Hon. Member for some considerable period of time. At the present time he has a
motion on the Order Paper which recommends that the Government consider opening up the Canada Pension Plan Act to make these amendments.
The Government has no current intention of reopening the Canada Pension Plan Act. However, should that arise, we will certainly take into consideration the recommendations of the hon. gentleman.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AGREEMENTS REQUEST THAT DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER CONFIRM EXISTENCE OF CERTAIN CUT-BACKS
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology blames the Government of Quebec for the inexcusable delay in implementing the Canada-Quebec agreements. In doing so, the Minister is trying to distract attention from the cutbacks he made in the regional development budget.
Mr. Speaker, I have here a letter dated May 2, sent by the Minister to Minister Gil Remillard, in which he announced that there would be cuts totalling $470 million in the Canada-Quebec subsidiary agreements.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister confirm these cutbacks in the amount of approximately $470 million?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, we have three programs under the agreement, and we hope that the Government of the Province of Quebec will submit these programs as soon as possible. We are waiting.


QUESTION REITERATED
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I have here a letter dated May 2, in which the Minister confirms that he had to abandon-that there will be no funding for the subsidiary agreements that would have become effective on March 31, 1990, and which would have only involved the sum of $274 million instead of $745 million. That makes a difference of $470 million, Mr. Speaker. I wish the Government would confirm these cuts today instead of blaming the Government of Quebec. Ottawa is cutting back, not the Quebec Government.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before, this program is made up of three components. They are programs delivered by the federal Government, programs delivered by the provincial Government, and joint programs.
The expenditures under these programs will depend upon all the participants coming forward. We are still waiting for the Province of Quebec to come forward under the joint program component and its own part of the program.


FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I wish to direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Minister will know that Consumers Packaging, Canada's only glass manufacturer, announced recently the closure of its glass plant in Ville St. Pierre, Quebec, with the loss of 450 jobs.
This Friday the company will announce its decision to shut a second plant either in Alberta or British Columbia with the loss of a further 300 to 450 jobs. The chief executive officer of the parent company has acknowledged that these closures are to keep the industry competitive in response to the elimination of Canadian tariffs in light of free trade.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the 700 to 900 Canadian workers who are about to lose their jobs where to apply for the massive readjustment programs that the Prime Minister promised the Canadian people during the election campaign?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have a list here which is seven or eight pages long setting out plants that have expanded and factories that have expanded-
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: Thble it.


John Carnell Crosbie: -as well as new investments that have been made because of the Free Trade Agreement.
For example, Miramichi Pulp and Paper in Newcastle has hired 300 new employees and will hire an additional 100 in the fall as part of a $480 million expansion plan made possible by the Free Trade Agreement.
There is page after page of examples that we can give. It is completely unproductive to make these unsubstantiated and silly allegations in the House about such matters.


IMPACT OF POSSIBLE PLANT CLOSURE ON OKANAGAN
Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, if the British Columbia plant located in the riding of Okanagan-Shuswap is the western plant to close, 450 people are going to be thrown out of work and there will be a loss of $32 million to the local economy.


Some Hon. Members:: If!


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: How can the Prime Minister possibly call free trade a benefit to the economy of the Okanagan when this is the kind of result that occurs?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, how the people of the Okanagan wish that they had their former Member back representing them now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Riis:: Name one.


John Edward Broadbent: Why is he not here?


John Carnell Crosbie: As a matter of fact he is close to us now, Mr. Speaker, watching us.
Just to give some examples from British Columbia, Alcan Aluminum is investing $48 million in its Kitimat plant.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Calgary Southeast.

June 14, 1989
Oral Questions


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, in view of Canada's support for the consensus resolution on the Middle East at the recent Francophone Summit, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs advise the House regarding Canada's position on direct negotiations between Israel and the Arab countries?
Does the Secretary of State believe that the holding of elections in the Gaza and the West Bank could be a step forward in the process of reconciliation between Israel and the Palestinians?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there are two points that I would like to make. First, the Hon. Member referred to the consensus resolution at the Francophone Summit. I think it is worth recording that Canada participated actively in forming that consensus, and indeed I think it could be said that as a result of our actions at that summit the resolution appears in the relatively moderate form that it does.
Second, on the question of elections, we believe that the proposal by Mr. Shamir is a small but significant step forward. We think that there needs to be more precision. It would help if there were a specification of the conditions under which elections could occur. We think it is an important beginning that should be built upon by all parties.


OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In the April 17, 1978 debate in this House, the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety received all-Party support. In fact, the then labour critic is quoted in Hansard as saying:
This Party supports the Bill because we believe that health and safety in the workplace are of vital importance.
Based on this information, why does the Minister of Labour feel that the Government has to withdraw its
financial commitment from this centre which needs $8 million annually to operate? Why is the Government killing this particular centre through financial strangulation?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Hon. Member of the Liberal Party for asking this question about the CCOHS, which I think is an organization that has done a tremendous job over the past 10 years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Corbeil: We are certainly determined to see that the centre will continue operating because it has produced a kind of information and a product that is easily marketable. We feel that with the consent and concurrence of the Council of Governors, it will be able, over the next few years, to find all the necessary funding to ensure that this operation will continue.


IMPACT OF CUT-BACKS ON CENTRE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the loss of funding to the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety will undoubtedly result in financial stress and possibly in closure.
My question is for the Minister of Labour. Is he aware that the centre had planned to expand its information systems to include environmental pollutants? Given the importance the Prime Minister has placed on the environment, how can the Minister justify this $8 million cut to the centre?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday afternoon, the Government of which I am a member is proud of its funding of CCOHS in recent years. I would like to point out that in the six years the Centre operated under the Liberal Government, funding provided by the government of the time amounted to $3 million annually. During the five years this Government has been in power, annual funding has been increased to $8 million. I think these figures are self-explanatory, Mr. Speaker, and that they demonstrate the interest this Government has in the Centre. In fact, we are absolutely convinced that the quality of the product it offers will enable the Centre to become self-financing without any problem within the next few years.
June 14, 1989


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The Assembly of First Nations has conducted a national review of education. The four-volume study, done at a cost of $6 million plus support services to his Department, was sent to the Minister on March 9, 1989. Is the Minister committed to the major recommendations contained in the national review of education? Will he ensure sufficient funding to implement the major recommendations of this review?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, as indicated by the Hon. Member, the study did cost approximately $6 million, was four years in the making, and is being reviewed by the Department right now.


FOLLOW-UP TO REVIEW-MINISTER'S POSITION
Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, when can the Assembly receive the Minister's answer with respect to the follow-up on the review? Will the Minister make available the funding requested by the Assembly so that aboriginal peoples can disseminate the report to all their communities?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated last night to Chief Erasmus and other representatives of the AFN, the review should be completed soon.


OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Yesterday the Minister tabled a report called Health Effects at the Site of the Gander Arrow Air Crash. The Minister advised the committee that Department of National Defence workers and Canadian Aviation Safety
Oral Questions
Board workers were not included in the study, that DND and CASB were waiting for this report before acting.
Will the Minister ensure that all workers involved in the Gander crash clean-up will be tested and monitored?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, we have been in touch with the other Departments involved. DND is doing its own study and has its own medical resources to do so. We have shared the results of this study with other Departments and are working very closely with them to ensure that the recommendations are fully implemented.


CONTENTS OF CARGO
Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. In addition to ensuring that the tests and monitoring of DND and CSAB workers take place, will he insist that the U.S. Government come clean on the contents of the cargo of that plane so that the monitoring will be done with the full knowledge of what substances the workers were exposed to?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, my Department, when it was conducting the study, was in touch with the Canadian Aviation Safety Board which gave a list to us of any materials found at the crash site.
It would be helpful to my researchers to be able to look at those materials found there to determine whether or not toxic materials could have been created which could have caused the symptoms in question.
We have no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the symptoms which have been felt by the workers at the site have been caused by exposure to toxic materials. Indeed, all the symptoms which have been disclosed are totally consistent with post-traumatic exposure syndrome which was discussed in the report itself. It is an excellent report, and we intend to see that its recommendations are implemented.


FISHERIES
Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It relates to that infamous Canada-France fish deal signed back in April some time, in which the

June 14, 1989
Privilege-Mr Desjardins
Government knuckled under to the Government of France in allowing French inspectors to board our vessels within our 100-mile limit.
To add insult to injury, we now find that prior notice must be given to the Government of France to let it know when our inspectors will board its vessels. Will the Minister tell us why those silly conditions were put in the agreement and how many inspections have taken place to date?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that on reflection the Hon. Member will admit that this infamous deal, as he describes it, will bring untold and permanent benefit to the fishermen of his constituency.
The Hon. Member understands that the essence of the dispute was an area to the south of the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon which both countries claimed. Is it understood, Mr. Speaker, that we are talking about a disputed zone which Canada claims is Canadian and which France claims is French? The French agreed to reduce their overfishing by more than 10,000 tonnes per year in the disputed zone, and we arranged with France that we would have our inspectors board their vessels and they would board our vessels for the purpose of ensuring that the landings records, which were kept by each country when their offshore trawlers fish in the disputed zone, were accurate.
This process is ongoing at present. I am advised that a Canadian fisheries officer is presently on board the French patrol vessel Rhones for the very purpose of inspecting the daily records of catch to ensure that France does not exceed its commitment to not overfish in the disputed zone.


Roger Simmons: I understand it full well, Mr. Speaker. But does the Minister understand which side he is supposed to be fighting for on this issue?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


OVERFISHING IN DISPUTED WATERS
Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, if the purpose of this exercise is to monitor
French overfishing that is a sick joke and the Minister knows it.
Given the prior notice, which must be like the RCMP saying it will only enforce impaired driving charges two nights a week or something-because he has to have the element of surprise-


Mr. Speaker:: I ask the co-operation of the Hon. Member. Given the time I asked for a short supplementary. It will be a short supplementary, please.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister, how will we know that the French are not continuing to rape our stocks as they have done with his blessing during the past four years?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I think the House would want to know for which side the Government is fighting.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: The Hon. Member will want to know that the Government is fighting for the constituents of the riding of Burin-St. George's which is more than he did as a member of the Government which condoned French fishing in our waters-legal French fishing-


Roger Simmons: Not true.


Thomas Edward Siddon: -in the amount of 28,000 tonnes per year, an amount which we have reduced to approximately
12,000	tonnes.


Mr. Speaker:: The Member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Desjardins) wishes to raise a question of privilege. The Hon. Member for Temiscamingue.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege because last night, my rights as a parliamentarian were breached. When the vote was called last night at 6 p.m., as scheduled, I was involved in a working session with two colleagues and three other people in Room 523 of the Wellington Building. None of the six people present, Mr. June 14, 1989

Speaker, heard the divisions bells ring between 5.45 p.m. and 6.00 p.m. Mr. Speaker, my rights as a parliamentarian were breached because I was unable to exercise my right to vote last night, at 6 p.m.
I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to make inquiries about the situation we had yesterday in Room 523 in the Wellington Building, to ensure that there are no recurrences, all in the best interests of all Members of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the problem. It isn't just a problem for the Hon. Member for Temiscamingue. We have a problem, and I will immediately make inquiries in order to correct it. I hope that in one or two days or by the end of this week, the problem will be dealt with.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is now prepared to rule on the point raised on May 29 and May 30, 1989 concerning the uses of Standing Order 39(6) and Questions on the Order Paper.
Before summarizing the situation, I would like to say a word of appreciation for the contribution that Members made to this somewhat complicated question. I should remark that it is really a complicated question and this ruling will take a little time.
It would be appropriate at this point to outline succinctly the procedure on written questions. It provides that Members seeking from the Ministry information relating to public affairs may place on the Order Paper after due notice of 48 hours up to four written questions at any one time. There are several restrictions covering the form and content of such questions. For example, argumentative material or unnecessary facts are not allowed, nor is the offering of opinions on a question. Also, no debate is permitted when a question is put on the Order Paper or when it is answered by the Government. The Clerk of the House has the responsibility to ensure that coherent and concise questions are placed on the Notice Paper as stated in Standing Order 39(2).
Finally, a Member may require that up to three of the four questions be given an oral answer in the House and may also request that the Ministry respond to the question within 45 days.
Speaker's Ruling
[Translation\
In due course, the Minister to whom a written question is addressed will answer it, usually through the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader. The answer can be given orally in the House, if an oral answer has been requested, or by handing a written document to the Clerk during Routine Proceedings. Whether the answer is given orally or in writing, the full text will be printed in the Debates of the same day. However, on occasions, because of the length of an answer, a request is made by the Government to have the question made an order for return and the answer is then tabled in the House and filed as a sessional paper which is available, on request, to all Members.

Let me now summarize the procedural difficulty which I was asked to examine on May 29 and May 30. Briefly, Standing Order 39(6) states that at the request of the Government the Speaker examines a particular question or questions and, if it appears that a question "is of such a nature as to require a lengthy reply, the Speaker-may direct the same to stand as a notice of motion-upon the Order Paper," with such changes in form as are required for this transformation.
On May 29, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader (Mr. Cooper) asked the Chair to deal with seven Order Paper questions in relation to Standing Order 39(6), namely, Questions Nos. 45, 52, 53, 62, 64, 83 and 88.
I advised the House at the time that the Chair would wish to consider the matter with great care and invited interested Members to make comments at a later date.

The next day, a number of Members came forward to assist the Chair in analysing the question. As I have said, these remarks were very helpful.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader stated what I believe all Members can agree with: that the process of placing questions on the Order Paper is important and fundamental, both to the House and to individual Members on all sides, and that it is a process well worth examining. He then went on to point out that some questions asked are so complicated, require the gathering of so much new information that they are impossible to answer within a 45-day limit and in some cases difficult to answer at all. He said, and I quote his words from page 2338 of Hansard of May 30, 1989:

Speaker's Ruling
There is no longer a concern about how impossible it may be to
answer.
I think we would also have to agree that this is sometimes the case. The Chief Government Whip as reported at page 2340 of Hansard commented that "the form in which some come forward to Government put a kind of strait-jacket on us". He also reminded the House that, as I have remarked on many occasions before, the Chair must interpret the Standing Orders as they exist. If some aspect of the rules are unsatisfactory to the House, it is the House that must provide the remedy. The Chief Government Whip's reference to the number of unanswerable questions in the last Parliament points out a particular problem, and I was very interested in his suggestion, minor alterations in form might have made it possible to answer many of those questions fairly quickly.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) argued ably for a continuation of current practice in regard to these questions: that is the transformation of questions requiring long answers into Orders for Returns-the latter to be tabled immediately, or at some later time. He stressed the role of the Chair as the protector of all Members' rights: a role that the Chau-must certainly always bear in mind.

The Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. Riis) indicated the possibility that the practices of the House may have changed so greatly in the last 60 years that to invoke a rule which has fallen into disuse as it stands may be to risk moving counter to the spirit in which it was originally adopted. Both he and the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) put the matter in the context of the recent parliamentary reforms which have done so much to revitalize the House.
The Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen- Merritt (Mr. Whittaker) pointed out that there is very little explicit indication in the Standing Orders of what length or degree of complication a question should have. The Hon. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Althouse) was
able to assist us with his experience on the McGrath Committee where such guidelines had been discussed.
He went on to make several other points that the Members of the House ought to be left to decide for themselves whether or not to give notice of a motion similar to their question; that the framer of a question is a participant in the process and should expect the quality of the question to have a strong effect on the framing of the answer; and that most Members would consider a response declining to answer the question, for a stated reason, to be legitimate.

Finally, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Milliken) pointed out that a Private Member's Notice of Motion had a far better chance of coming before the House formerly than it has now. He suggested that either the proposal of the Parliamentary Secretary or the Standing Order itself might profitably be referred to the Procedure Committee for study and review.

The Chair has now had time to consider the matter at length. The use of Standing Order 39(6) appears simple enough at the outset; but as we have seen, upon examination it grows more complex and elusive.
The dilemma is this: we must find a balance between the urgent requirements of Members who need information in order to function and the equal imperative of a rational and fair use of the limited resources available to provide answers.
In an attempt to find this balance, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary asked the Chair several days ago to act under the provision of Standing Order 39(6), which permits-and I wish to emphasize the word "permits"- the Speaker to transform into a Notice of Motion any question which is brought to his attention by the Government and which he considers would require a "lengthy" reply.

I must emphasize, at the outset, that the Parliamentary Secretary's request is indeed quite legitimate and well within the bounds of our Standing Orders. As a matter of fact, this practice, if implemented in today's House, would certainly go some distance to solving the problem we have outlined. The pressure of the 45-day limit in which to provide "lengthy" answers would be relieved. Since not all of these motions would be agreed to, or even considered, the work-hours available might be
June 14, 1989

more fairly and more widely distributed among Members' questions requiring shorter answers. As for those converted to motions, as the Chief Government Whip (Mr. Hawkes) has pointed out, the decision whether these more "expensive" answers should be provided would then be made by the House.

Unfortunately, it appears that this proposed solution may carry with it a new set of problems. It has been suggested that the use of this Standing Order might result in unreasonable limits in the freedom of Members to ask questions; it is even speculated that privilege might be involved. It has also been suggested that the Standing Order has survived so long unchanged because it has remained unused for the past 60 years; that its use in today's context may not be what was intended; and that it no longer fits the conditions of the present House of Commons, and certainly not those brought about by the McGrath reforms.
I share the view expressed by several Members that the direct consequence of transforming a written question into a Notice of Motion, to be eventually considered under Private Members' Business when transferred for debate, will be to diminish considerably the chances of the item ever being put before the House again. But it is interesting to see that such a difficulty had also been envisaged back in 1906 when Standing Order 39(6) was first adopted by the House. May I quote from the House of Commons Debates on July 10, 1906 at page 7602:


Mr.   Sproule@: Then after a certain stage in the session notices of motion cannot be reached and in the case of a long question, if the government do not want to give the information all they have to do is say: You must move for it. There may be no opportunity to move and therefore the opposition are prevented from getting the information.
Certainly, I can tell the House that a request to invoke Standing Order 39(6) would undoubtedly always put the Speaker in a difficult position. It would require the Chair to make a series of decisions on non-procedural matters for which there is no information available and which only the Government, with its expert staff, is able to judge accurately: the probable length of answers which
Speaker's Ruling
have not yet been produced. It is also true that no objective definition of "lengthy" has been provided; and in any case, it would be rash to suppose that the difficulty of answering a question must vary according to its length, or that the value of an answer is in any way proportionate to its length.

In addition, not all questions rejected as unanswerable can reasonably be converted into motions requesting the tabling of documents. Unless the question itself inquires specifically about a document, converting it into a notice of motion for the production of papers might well make it even harder to answer satisfactorily.
Another concept with which the Chair has some difficulty is that of placing on the Order Paper, in the name of a Member of this House, a notice of motion which that Member has not signed or indicated any interest in presenting. As the Hon. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Althouse) pointed out, if a Member has a question refused and wishes to present a notice of motion on the same subject, he or she is perfectly able to do so.

I have examined very carefully the request of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader (Mr. Cooper) and find that I am unable for several reasons to comply with the terms of the Standing Order in today's context without prejudicing the right of private Members to control fully their business by choosing for themselves how best to seek information: by placing questions on the Order Paper, perhaps requesting an answer from the Government within a 45-day period; or by having a Notice of Motion, if successful in the draw, debated during Private Member's Business.
The House will understand that two new elements which were recently incorporated in the Standing Orders on written questions have practically eliminated the kind of abuses on House time that existed in 1906. I am referring specifically to Standing Order 39(4) limiting the number of questions on the Order Paper to four per Member at any one time and to Standing Order 39(5) allowing a Member to request that the Ministry respond to a question within 45 days.

June 14, 1989
Speaker's Ruling
The Chair is extremely concerned that allowing the Government's request to transform a question into a Notice of Motion would appear as a step backwards in the evolution of the procedure governing written questions and would go against the expectation of the McGrath reform to have a more efficient method of dealing with questions.

As indicated by several Hon. Members, there is a long-standing practice which allows the Government to ask the House, in those instances when there is to be a lengthy reply, that the question be made an Order for Return. Such a Return is then either tabled forthwith, if the reply is ready, or tabled at a later date on completion of the reply.

There is also a procedurally quite acceptable practice -and indeed many Hon. Members have suggested that it is quite legitimate for the Government to do so-simply to respond by saying that the question cannot be answered because of the time and the human or financial resources involved. May I refer Hon. Members to Questions No. 8, 11, 12, 13 and 14 already answered in such a way by the Government during the current session.
The Government may continue the practice of simply declining, with an explanation, to answer questions which it finds are too burdensome. An explanation could also be given, during Routine Proceedings, that certain questions could not be answered within the requested time and perhaps reasons for that could be given. It should be understood that there is no obligation on the Government to provide a perfect answer, only a fair one. A Member in framing his or her question would accept part of the responsibility for the quality of the answer.

It is possible that the problems we now face arise partly as a result of recent reforms. The McGrath
Committee foresaw some of the difficulties and commented, on page 46 of its report: "lb avoid the possibility that members would try to get around the four-question rule by asking questions containing numerous sub-questions, all written questions should be directed to the Clerk for close and careful scrutiny as to form and content."

In that regard, the Clerk of the House must apply more rigorously the provisions of Standing Order 39(2) and, as stated in recommendation 7.10 of the report from the McGrath Committee:
- reject outright or to split into separate and distinct questions
those questions that contain unrelated sub-questions.
No doubt there are many other solutions which could also be explored. It appears to the Chair that the subject is worthy of consideration at some greater length than we have been able to devote to it here. In fact, the Chair would welcome the guidance of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedures and Private Members' Business in this matter. The committee can do that within its mandate, or if the House is so inclined, a specific Order of Reference could be given to the committee, as the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Milliken) has suggested. In any case, as Speaker, I strongly suggest to the Members of that committee that their recommendations on this question would be extremely useful to the Chair. Perhaps we may hope for some guidance from the committee on this issue.
In the meantime, however, I must regretfully state that the Chair cannot agree to the request of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.
I want to say in addition that the Chair is extremely cognizant of the fact that this is not a one-sided issue. If Hon. Members will read carefully the decision which I have just rendered, I think it will be made clear that I am concerned as Speaker that both sides of the House are treated fairly in what is clearly becoming a problem. I would hope that the House, as I have suggested, would move to find a solution. I thank Hon. Members.
June 14, 1989



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to several petitions.



ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I also wish to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments made by the Government. Under the provisions of Standing Order 110(1) these are deemed referred to the appropriate Standing Committees, a list of which is attached.



CANADA-EUROPE PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION PRESENTATION OF OFFICIAL DELEGATION REPORT CONCERNING 17TH ANNUAL MEETING OF PARLIAMENTS' DELEGATIONS

Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the report of the official delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association on the 17th annual meeting of Canadian and European parliamentary delegations held in Ottawa and London from May 1 to 5, 1989.

Madam Speaker, there were two issues that were highlighted in the report as a result of the meetings. I bring them to the attention of the House because last year the proposed ban by the Europeans on the import of furs was a very relevant issue in this House.
I want to report that this year we took the European delegation to Wiebequi, a northern Indian community near Hudson Bay, to show them how unfair such a ban
Introduction of Bills
would be on our native communities which are so dependent on fur trapping. This led to a far greater insight into the livelihood of the native peoples of the region and of Canada, and it led to a commitment by the chairman of the European committee to bring this enlightenment to the European Parliament this month in Brussels. Therefore we have that commitment. I believe that it is going to read well for all Members of this House that the Europeans are truly seeing how this effects our native people.
The most controversial issue was the Canada-EC fisheries dispute. Each side made its points, the Canadian delegation stressing the urgent need for conservation or there would be no fish to catch in the future.
On this issue, the two delegations concluded a joint resolution urging their respective authorities to find a solution as quickly as possible. I might say that part of that resolution was ensuring that a discussion of the issue of the fisheries should be given the necessary high priority at the forthcoming EC-Canada ministerial meeting. I want to report obviously that it did get that priority. The Ministers of our country and the European countries did bring this issue to a head. We urge further consultation for the resolution of this problem.



SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the first and second reports of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Mr. Guy H. Arsenault (Restigouche) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-252, an Act to change the name of the electoral district of Restigouche.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall the Hon. Member ?220zhave leave to introduce the Bill?

June 14, 1989
Petitions


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Guy H. Arseneault: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank you and Hon. Members for giving me this opportunity to introduce a bill whose purpose is to change the name of my riding of Restigouche by adding the name of Chaleur.
My reasons for introducing this Bill are quite simple. The name Restigouche does not adequately reflect my riding. It refers to the Restigouche River and Restigouche county, but unfortunately, does not reflect the presence of the Chaleur region.
Madam Speaker, the role of a Member of Parliament is to represent his entire riding before the Parliament of Canada, and I believe that the change proposed in this Bill will have the effect of giving my riding a name that will more adequately reflect the regions it covers.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties with a view to accommodating the Members vis-a-vis the Speaker's garden party. I think Your Honour will find that unanimous consent for my putting the following motion immediately and without debate:
That any recorded division requested today will be deferred until 6 p.m., Monday, June 19, 1989.
It is the Government's intention to call only the two Bills on the projected order of business. They are Bill C-ll, to continue third reading, and Bill C-10, resuming debate at second reading.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Does the Hon. Minister have the consent of the House to move the motion?


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, we certainly agree with the motion, although I do not believe it will be necessary.


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. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege and honour to rise and present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36, in which some 50 residents of various towns in Ontario point out, among other things, that the Government's deregulation of air passenger service has dramatized the need for safe, convenient, economical, rapid, and environmentally sound alternative passenger service.
They pray and call upon Parliament to improve and modernize VIA Rail service in the areas of the country where it can provide a more rapid, economical, safe, convenient, environmentally sound, and energy efficient alternative to other means of transportation.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition on behalf of a number of Canadian citizens who recognize that VIA Rail is an important part of the transportation system, particularly in the Quebec-Windsor corridor.
They call upon the Government to recognize the need for that kind of service and to make it available to Canadians generally.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by several people from the Windsor, Ontario area.
June 14, 1989

Petitions
They deciy the fact that VIA is to be cut back and probably terminated in its operations. Indeed, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain, improve, and modernize VIA Rail service, particularly in those areas of the country where it can provide a more rapid, economical, safe, convenient, environmentally sound, and energy efficient alternative to other means of transportation.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure to present petitions to the House of Commons. These petitions are spearheaded by the Victims of Violence Society, by the Citizens United For Safety and Justice, and by 31 Members of Parliament from across Canada who are currently collecting signatures on a national petition which will be presented to the House over a period of several weeks. It is expected to accumulate tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of signatures.
It is my pleasure to present a petition today to the House of Commons, including 2,588 signatures mostly from the City of Peterborough and the County of Peterborough, which calls on the Government of Canada to revise its extradition laws in order that we may prevent Canada from becoming a safe haven for criminals. There are five known convicts from the United States in our institutions now.
This petition brings the total to over 36,000 signatures which have been presented to date into the House of Commons.


Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition, duly certified correct as to form and content, representing 2,160 Canadians from Alberta, Ontario, and Prince Edward Island.
These concerned citizens call upon the Government to revise the extradition laws to allow for the extradition of criminals immediately or after they have been fully dealt with by the Canadian penal system. These Canadians want the Government to take action to prevent Canada from becoming a sanctuary for criminals.
The number of signatures on petitions now stands at in excess of 38,000.


Mr. Darryl L. Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-Ia-Made-leine):: Madam Speaker, I also have the honour this afternoon to present petitions to this House, pursuant to Standing Order 36, from my constituents concerning VIA Rail services.
Madam Speaker, it is important to point out, with the report that VIA Rail will present to our Minister towards the end of June, how important these services are for us in the Gaspe peninsula.

The important matter for those of us on the government side, as well as for VIA administration when it decides what its new plan will be, is that my people at home wish to continue our service. We will go with the status quo now and go for better service after.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour today, under the provisions of Standing Order 36, to present hundreds of petitions containing more than 5,000 signatures of people from Alberta, mainly the Calgary area and, more important, my riding of Calgary Southwest. These petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to revise its extradition laws.
I am pleased to join with these petitioners who humbly pray and call upon Parliament to revise the laws of Canada relating to extradition to allow the Minister of Justice of Canada to order the extradition of alleged or convicted criminals at any time after their apprehension in Canada, even during their period of incarceration for crimes committed in this country.


Mr.   Brian@: Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today in the House of Commons, under the provisions of Standing Order 36, to present a petition from a large number of people in the Province of Alberta. These petitions contain the signatures of 1,198 Albertans who call upon the Canadian Government to change our extradition laws.
These petitioners from the Province of Alberta ask Parliament to revise the laws of Canada relating to extradition to allow the Minister of Justice of Canada to order the extradition of alleged or convicted criminals at any time after their apprehension in Canada, even

June 14, 1989
Borrowing Authority
during their period of incarceration for crimes committed in Canada.
The number of petitions now presented to the House of Commons is in excess of 44,000.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Madam Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition duly certified by the Clerk.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain and improve VIA Rail service. It is very important to rural areas of Canada in particular and all across Canada. I join with these petitioners in urging the Government to continue and to improve the service.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall all questions be allowed to 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 motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
that Bill C-ll, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the third time and passed.
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, I rise to resume the debate I began on Monday on Bill C-ll, a Bill to provide borrowing authority. On that day I spent quite some time discussing the plight of the coalition of fishermen and plant workers from the West Coast. It is a situation that could easily apply to many areas in Canada, particularly to the East Coast.
The people on the East Coast in the fishery should be a 100 per cent behind this coalition because what has happened out there could easily happen on the East Coast in the fishery.
Just to review it very quickly, under GATT the Canadian Government apparently brought in a regulation which said that our fish must be processed here in Canada. It prohibited the export of unprocessed salmon and herring. The United States then petitioned GATT and it was found to be offensive.
It was raised in this House. I feel very strongly that when it comes down to dealing with a natural resource, a renewable resource which so many jobs are dependent on, this Government, any Government in Canada, should forcefully stand up and take the consequences. It should stand up to the United States.
When it came to the hogs, the United States did not think of Canada. It did not think of GATT reviewing the agricultural process and the agricultural subsidies. It did not think of the new Free Trade Agreement. It went directly under the omnibus trade Bill and slapped a countervail on the Canadian hog industry.
I say to the Hon. Members that unless Canadians stand up and make our natural resources of prime concern to Canadians first, we are going to be in very sore trouble, particularly in the eastern, western and rural areas of Canada where so many people are dependent on those jobs being created by our natural resources.
This Government does not listen to those people. Those people have come up here and spent a week trying to bring home that point. The Government does not listen to the native people who are outside and have been outside. It does not listen to the people who are going to be hurt by the cut-backs in health and education because of the financing program.I do not think this
June 14, 1989

Government listens to anybody except big interests whose toes might be stepped on by this Government.
We are here passing a Bill which wants us to let this Government borrow $24 billion. The Government is not going to borrow the money to improve the quality of life for those who are unemployed, those people who are going to be receiving unemployment insurance and who have depended on seasonality.


Mr. Thompson:: What about the debt?


Coline M. Campbell: I am glad the new Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte brought up the matter of the debt. He was not here in 1984.1 was here in 1984. I got defeated by this Government's promises in 1984. What was the promise in 1984? It was that the Government would reduce the deficit. Did it reduce the deficit?


Andrew Thompson: Yes.


Coline M. Campbell: No, it did not
reduce any deficit. In fact, the deficit proposed in this Budget of April 27 is exactly $30.5 billion for the fiscal year 1989-90. If the Government had not added the biggest tax grab to bring in revenues for $3.7 billion, where would the deficit be? The Government has put the biggest tax grab on the Canadian people in any time in history when there was not a major crisis. Cutting spending in its own areas might have been better, but no, it goes after cigarettes, gas, fishing vessel diesel oil, all things which will hurt all our constituents. The Government just goes after them with the biggest tax grab.


An Hon. Member:: Bankrupt, totally bankrupt.


Coline M. Campbell: That is right. What is a deficit if we take away the tax grab this year? If we take away the $3.7 billion and not put in the taxes, what would the deficit be for 1989-90? It would be $34.2 billion. What was the deficit in 1984. It was $34.2 billion.
How can that Government over there say that it has cut the deficits? It has gone through the best economic times, started by the way before it came into office, that this country has seen in the last number of years.
Did the the Government cut deficits? No, it increased deficits. Did it help bring in any new programs? No, it did not bring in any new programs. What is it doing now? It
Borrowing Authority
is cutting VIA. It is going to cut the rail lines in the East. It is going to cut VIA from Halifax to Yarmouth.


Andrew Thompson: You do not know that. The report is not out.


Coline M. Campbell: Madam Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member wants to speak and should be given time to speak about what he thinks is not fair. He is so new in the system that it will take a thunderbolt to hit him rather than this Government telling him what he should know. However, he can ask a question after if he wants.
I just know that this Government is going to hit the Canadian people, particularly those in the East, in the area of health and in the area of post-secondary education as far as universities are concerned. I have said that before and I do not want to go into it again. Now it is going to hit ACOA, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.


Andrew Thompson: There is $500 million going to Atlantic Canada this year.


Coline M. Campbell: I just want to say, Madam Speaker,-


Andrew Thompson: This fiscal year, $500 million.


Coline M. Campbell: -that the Government did not bring in any new programs to replace the ageing sewer and water systems. Is this Member taking part of my time, Madam Speaker?
I just think that the Government has not in the last five years improved the quality of life. In fact, it is going to hit the unemployed; it is not going to find new jobs for the seasonality of the east coast unemployed because of the type of industries we have, either in fishery, forestry, farming, or tourism.
What is the Government going to do to tourism with the national sales tax? It is going to hit us so bad in the East that we will not even know that there is a Canada. The proposed national sales tax is going to hit every area of the service industry in the east coast. As soon as tourists who come across by car or by ferry ask for something, there will be a sales tax. There will be another sales tax and another.
Why does the Conference Board of Canada say that it is tourism which will be hurt the most in the East and that the East will be hurt, not Quebec and Ontario? It is going to be the East in terms of the national sales tax.

June 14, 1989
Borrowing Authority
I am glad that there is a bit more time and that I do not have to close off that fast. I do not mind having a borrowing Bill if I thought it was improving the quality of life. However, it is not.
This Government's Budget is hurting the future people who will be on unemployment insurance. It is hurting the people who have used VIA right across Canada, particularly in remote areas, to get to the cities for medical purposes or whatever. They have to go from Yarmouth to the Victoria General Hospital, or they have to go from Digby, Saulnierville, or Bridgetown to the Victoria General Hospital. There is no other way to go.
I say that because I am hearing it from the people. I attended the hearings. I am sure that over the next few weeks and months we are going to hear a lot more.
Why did the Member from the Magdalen Islands stand up and say that he wants the status quo for VTA? Why is he petitioning the Government with a petition from his people? It is because the cuts to VTA are going to affect everybody in Canada.
We could talk about allowing this Government to have the money, but I think it should be more responsible. Perhaps it should have cut in other areas, but it should be at least maintaining a fair standard of quality of life for all Canadians. If we have a program such as ACOA, as we saw in the East, why should we cut back on all of those applications? Those people have spent hundreds and thousands of dollars to prepare an application which they put in a year ago and it was not decided on. Then the rules changed and even to understand what the rules mean because of the change it will take a lot of dollars in government spending to go out and explain to the people. This is if there is money because we have not even been told that there is money in ACOA. We have not been told if there is money for the ERDA arrangements with the East.
This Bill will pass by virtue of the Government's large majority, but it must start realizing that it cannot be taking and taking and hurting all the small people in Canada.
In the last two weeks the Minister of Fisheries presented a policy on vessel replacement. I give this as an
example to my colleagues in the House. I refer to a man who had an application in for a loan from the provincial Government to replace a 37-foot lobster boat was told he had to go down to a boat of 32 feet. Why? It was because, unilaterally on April 1, the rules were changed.
What will that change in the rules mean? It will mean that this man will not fit in under the coast guard regulations. Nor will he fit in in terms of boat builders who are laying off many of their people since they now have to go out to find new moulds. The mould used for the 37-foot boat will have to be replaced by a mould for a 32-foot boat. It sounds complicated. I have to say that it is complicated. It is so complicated that the fishermen, the ship builders, and all their workers have been asking to come to see the Minister and to appear before the committee. However, time is running out. The House will shut down at the end of June. They are not the only group which wants to come.
I see that you are signalling to me that my time is up, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to speak today. I have to say that of course I oppose this borrowing authority. I do not think it is a reasonable approach to satisfy the needs of all Canadians. The Government has satisfied only the needs of the big interest groups in Canada.


Andrew Thompson: Madam Speaker, I listened with great delight as the Hon. Member for South West Nova prattled on about some obvious problems that she sees. The point we have to underline is that many of the problems with which we have to deal are problems that we inherited when we formed the Government in 1984. The Hon. Member conveniently disregards the fact that in 1984 we inherited a $200 billion deficit. Members of that former Liberal Government brag about the fact that they left the cupboard bare. They are on the record as having stated that they left the cupboard bare. Consequently, we were left paying the bills for that Liberal Government. We are still paying them.


Mr. Milliken:: You keep talking about it, but you don't do anything about it.


Andrew Thompson: As the Hon. Member concluded her arguments in this debate, she mentioned some of the complicated issues with which she is dealing. I think she unnecessarily complicates them.
June 14, 1989

She spoke of the ERDAs, the regional development agreements, that we are negotiating with the provinces today.


Mr. McGuire:: Where are they now?


Andrew Thompson: They will be signed, as they always have been. They have been very generous to the provinces in the past. In fact, most all the provincial Governments in Atlantic Canada will give credit to the federal Government for having transferred those moneys to the provinces to allow them to run a balanced ledger. Everyone in the House, regardless of side, understands the importance of the ERDAs. They will be signed.
The Member from South West Nova offers no alternatives. She and the Members of her Party are devoid of alternatives. They can criticize as they like. We are trying to deal with some very real problems left to us by her Government.


Coline M. Campbell: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte comes from the other side of the Bay of Fundy. People from my area know that area well for many reasons.
I wish to bring to the attention of the Hon. Member that in 1984 the public debt was $68 billion. In the four years of economic influence by the Conservatives that figure increased to $191.5 billion.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Coline M. Campbell: I said in my speech that the Government had the best economic times. The Hon. Member was not here from 1980 to 1984 when the rate of inflation went up as a result of what had happened in the 1970s because of high energy prices.


Mr. Vincent:: Because of your bad policies.


Coline M. Campbell: We will see who had bad policies. Just wait. In the long term we will see who had bad policies. Members opposite rode with a Minister of Finance who said that we will have new economic growth. The reality is that if he had not put the biggest tax grab on Canadians, a grab of $3.7 billion in the last Budget, the deficit would be the same as it was when he first came into office, a deficit of $34.2 billion. That is the reality. The biggest tax grab as well as the interest rate policy of the Bank of Canada will put the Government and Canada into, if not a depression, at least a recession. The Hon. Member for Carleton-
Borrowing Authority
Charlotte represents the same type of people as I represent. They are ordinary Canadians who make their living from natural resources in their areas.
As we very clearly saw with the west coast coalition today, yesterday, and the day before, these people cannot live without the ability to process their fish. They cannot live on the West Coast in those fishing villages without being able to process their fish. Yet that is viewed as a violation of the Free Trade Agreement with the U.S. We want to protect the jobs of our fishermen who fish in our own waters as well as jobs on shore. I think it is atrocious that the Government kneels to the United States.


Mr. Parent:: Madam Speaker, it would seem to me that the Hon. Member who spoke prior to my colleague still has not got used to the fact that his Government has been in power now for in excess of four years. Sooner or later he and members of the Government will have to take responsibility for some of their own actions.


Andrew Thompson: We will take the responsibility for employment and the wealth of the country.


Gilbert Parent: The Hon. Member had his chance to say what he had to say, which was not much, I will admit, but now I think he should have the courtesy of listening to what I have to say.


Andrew Thompson: Inaccuracies.


Gilbert Parent: I am addressing my hon. colleague, the Member from Nova Scotia. I visited Summerside recently. My colleague did not address, at least in depth, the issue there. I wonder if she might make a comment on the closing of the Canadian Forces bases in the Maritime provinces, especially in terms of the jobs that will be lost there, as well as with respect to the economic impact those closures will have on the people in the surrounding areas. I do not mean just the military. I am talking about ordinary Canadians, if you will, Madam Speaker, from the Maritimes who are trying the best they can to make a living and to help build Canada with the rest of us. Perhaps my colleague could address herself to that.


Coline M. Campbell: Madam Speaker, because of redistribution I do not represent Barrington any more. I feel sorry for the Member from South Shore. It must be very hard for him to see that base close after so many years.

June 14, 1989
Borrowing Authority
The spin-off effects from a base like Summerside would be about 60 per cent in the area, if not 70 per cent. We have heard that those bases do not have to be in those areas for regional development. We are told that they were not put there at a time when there was a need for regional development. They were put there because there was a need for a Canadian Forces base in the areas in which they were placed. That is what we were told.
The closure will affect those foreigners who are overfishing within and without the 200-mile limit. If will affect a company such as IMP which is bringing new technology and new ideas to the area. It had a contract. I heard that somewhere between 20 per cent to 25 per cent of its intake of business will be affected. I am not sure on that; it may be more. It affects the whole economy.
I have never heard of anything so devastating as what is being done to Summerside. I cannot believe that the Government can do this. If it wants to do away with CFB Summerside, it must have a plan of action that will sustain the area. If it does not have such a plan, it is simply saying that Summerside is on its own. In my opinion, Canada has never been that way. We are a countiy that has shared in the difficulties that exist across Canada. When a disaster occurs in one part of Canada, the rest of Canada has always helped.
I do not think Canadians want to see the effect of the base closures in Portage la Prairie and Summerside. There should be a more reasoned use of those facilities. One does not build a brand new cafeteria for $10 million and then close it. What does one do with it?
The Minister of State for Tourism (Mr. Hockin) has indicated that the tourism distribution centre in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, is no longer needed. It was only built five or six years ago, but it and its nine jobs are no longer needed. It cost the Government many millions of dollars to build the building and it costs about $792,000 a year in operating expenses and salaries. All the Government agencies that are operational on the east coast, for example the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, could use that distribution centre, but the Government does not think of that.
I know you are telling me that my time is up, Madam Speaker. I thank Hon. Members for their questions.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to participate in this debate on the borrowing Bill brought forward by the Government. I note from the provisions of Clause 2 of the Bill that the Government is proposing to borrow a sum not exceeding $24.8 billion.
What I find really surprising is the lack of public comment on this Bill and on the record of the Government in financial matters. I would like to speak briefly about what I consider to be an appalling record in this regard and to point out to Hon. Members, particularly those opposite, how they might seek to improve the record by changing their ways.
As Hon. Members know, the borrowing Bill is one of three major financial items that Governments present to the House of Commons in the course of a year. We have seen more fumbling and bumbling by the Government on financial matters during the course of this Parliament than any Canadian Parliament has ever had to witness. I would like to deal with that fumbling and bumbling by referring to each of the three items of financial business and explaining how it is in my view that the Government has fumbled and bumbled its way through these items.
I would like to turn first to the business of supply which has occupied considerable debate in the House in the course of this session. The irregular procedures the Government has followed in this connection have been shocking. The normal procedure is that the Estimates for the financial year are tabled in the House of Commons by the end of February of the year, or around the beginning of March. This year, it was April 28 before the Estimates were presented to the House.
In addition, the House failed to deal, because of the Government's fumbling and bumbling, with the question of Supplementary Estimates for the last financial year which ended on March 31. We have discussed extensively in connection with both the Supplementary Estimates and Main Estimates which were tabled so late the Government's dereliction of its responsibility to call Parliament together in a timely matter to deal with the financial matter of supply.
June 14, 1989

In various debates in the House and in committee, we have heard how the Government breached the Constitution of Canada by issuing money to itself through the use of special Governor General Warrants which, in my submission, it had no proper right to do. I am supported in my opinion by such eminent scholars as Senator Forsey who has expressed his views before a Senate committee. I will not bore Hon. Members opposite by reading his testimony again. However, this is a clear indication of a shocking disregard for constitutional practice and constitutional obligation, and one that the Government should be apologizing for rather than carrying on the way it does.
Regarding the business of supply, the Government has been late at every turn. It has failed to consult Parliament as it is obligated to do under the Constitution. It has dealt itself money which it had no right under the Constitution to take, in my view, and it has generally fumbled and bumbled the business of supply in its manner of dealing with the House.
Now we turn to the second major item, the Budget. It hardly seems necessary for me to explain the fumbling and bumbling that went on with the Budget. We all know about the incredible Budget leak. The whole Budget got leaked in advance of Budget night, something unprecedented in Canada. There have been lots of Budgets over the last 22 years, heaven knows, but nothing like this has ever happened. The whole Budget was blown the night before.
We have witnessed the really rather shameful procedure whereby the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) have tried to blame the Opposition for the failure of the Government to present its Budget properly before the House the night before it was supposed to be presented. I have explained on previous occasions to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and other Hon. Members opposite how it is that the rules of the House do not provide for consultation with the Opposition in these matters. It is not a matter of asking the Opposition for authority. That is a specious argument put forward by the Ministers in order to evade their responsibility to the House and to the country. Their responsibility was to come clean with the Budget in the House, not to ask the
Borrowing Authority
Opposition for consent to do that. They did not need our consent to do that. They are the masters in this House. We are in Opposition and do not have a majority, much to the regret to the majority of Canadians, I might add.
Beside the fact that the Budget was leaked so badly, there has been a rather shameful cover-up on the question of how much the Government knew when the Budget was ultimately presented in the House on April 27. The evasive answers we have been given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), by the Deputy Prime Minister and by the Minister of Justice have led to a loss of confidence in the Government on the part of Canadians and loss of confidence in the ability of its Ministers to look after the financial affairs of Canada. This evasion has once again surrounded one of the principle financial instruments of Government, the Budget.
I could go on to deal with the merits of the Budget, but frankly, it would be a short speech were I discussing its merits. There are so many demerits in the Budget that those are the ones that require attention. There has been a shocking series of tax increases and cuts in areas of questionable appropriateness.
I would like to turn to the Main Estimates. The Government makes a great thing of its cuts and the Minister of Finance keeps telling us how it is that he will balance the Budget and will suddenly stop these huge deficit increases that have been plaguing us for so long, according to the Minister. I would like to read from the statement made by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) when he introduced the Main Estimates in the House on April 28, as recorded at page 1078 of Hansard:
The Government's updated fiscal plan provides for total
budgetary expenditures of $142.9 billion in fiscal year 1989-1990, a
7.4 per cent increase over the forecast for the past fiscal year.
Here we talk about government restraint. The Government is constantly complaining in this House that it cannot do this and it cannot do that because of fiscal-


An Hon. Member:: What about that intervention we just heard?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I am sorry, if the New Democratic Party Members wish to participate in the debate I am sure the contributions they are making are typical of what we

June 14, 1989
Borrowing Authority
might hear if they were in it, so I will continue with my speech.
The 7.4 per cent increase in government expenditures over the forecast for the past fiscal year-and we are told this is restraint-is that restraint? Is that what Hon. Members opposite consider restraint? I do not consider that particularly restraining.
I consider that a rather hefty increase and that is what we are being subjected to in spite all the rattling of chains and the noise about cuts. This is not a cut, this is a big increase. What is being done to pay for this increase? We are told that in fact the Government is slashing expenditures right, left and centre. The fact is the cuts are minimal. The fact is that the Government is raising its money on the backs of Canadians by vast increases in the taxes that Canadians pay as a result of these financial measures. That is what is going on here. What the Government is really doing is saying on the one hand, "Well, we have slashed expenditures", and it announces a series of cuts that are devastating in three or four areas and it increases everything else. Then the Government says, "We will increase the taxes to pay for everything else". That is what is going on and it is a shifty, shady, questionable operation. The Government is not coming clean with Canadians and explaining what it is really doing through this Budget.
We have been maintaining that on this side of the House for months now on every single item, because what appears to be happening is really not what is happening. The Government makes a policy announcement and says it is going to fix up unemployment insurance. "We are going to improve it". But when in fact you look at the details of the plan it is worse for almost everyone who participates in unemployment insurance. The employers pay more, the employees pay more, and everyone gets less in benefits. That is not an improvement. Yet those are the kinds of policies that the Government pursues in this House. Those are the kinds of answers it gives to questions. Those are the kinds of speeches its members make when they stand up and defend some of the atrocious legislation which the Government has introduced in the House. The Government should be ashamed of itself.
I see the Hon. Member from British Columbia over there smiling and nodding in agreement. I can understand his agreement and his feelings of shame when he
considers the statements he is asked to make in this House in defence of some of the Government's legislative priorities. I must say that were I on the Government side, having to defend some of the legislation that we have here, I would be a little ashamed myself. In fact, considerably ashamed.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: He is nodding off.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The Hon. Member says he was nodding off. He looks wide awake to me.
I want to turn now to the third major item of financial control that the Government has at its disposal, and that is borrowing. That is the subject of the Bill we are discussing here today.
The Government made a decision in December that Parliament would be recalled in March. It later decided that it would be embarrassing to have an Opposition facing it across the House in March because we might ask difficult questions. We might embarrass Ministers. We might make the Government look incompetent. So the Government deferred the opening of Parliament until April, thinking that perhaps by April it might have its act together. We all know that it did not, but the fact remains we waited until April. In that month Parliament was recalled and we began dealing with a new series of legislative proposals outlined in the Speech from the Throne.
The difficulty is that by waiting until April the Government was forced to use the special Government General Warrants in order to get money from the treasury for the purpose of paying its bills. But there was not enough money in the treasury in order to allow the Government to take the money by special warrant. It had to resort to borrowing in order to replenish the treasury.
We know that under the Financial Administration Act the Government is able to borrow money. I would like to read from that Act, Section 47:
Where it appears to the Governor in Council that the Consolidated Revenue Fund will be insufficient to meet the disbursements lawfully authorized to be made from it, the Governor in Council may authorize the Minister to borrow, for a period not exceeding six months, an amount not exceeding such amount as the Governor in Council deems necessary to ensure that the Consolidated Revenue Fund will be sufficient to meet those disbursements.
The point of the section is that the Government may only borrow for a short-term period for normal government purposes. What happened here is that the Govern-
June 14, 1989

ment went out and borrowed, helped itself through the use of this Section of the Act to various sums of money. On March 31 it borrowed $750 million, on April 5 it took another cool billion, on April 14 it took another $100 million and on April 21 it took $150 million. The Government has borrowed a lot more since, totalling about $5 billion according to the records I obtained a few days ago.
Let us deal only with the borrowings up to April 21, because by that time the Government was about to bring this Bill before the House. In borrowing that money, the Government had to pay short-term rates because it was borrowing the money for periods of six months or less. Had it borrowed the money in the usual fashion in long-term borrowings, it would have paid a lower interest rate. The difference between the two rates, for simplification, is approximately 2 per cent. It was about that constant rate of 2 per cent throughout the period.
If we calculate the cost of borrowing the almost $2 billion over a six-month period, the estimated cost of that differential is approximately $4 million on a very rough calculation. That is what it has cost the people of Canada for the Government to refrain from calling Parliament until April. In other words, by delaying the recall of Parliament, the Government increased its expenses by about $4 million and now expects Canadians to cough up that money in extra taxes. Tkx Canadians to pay for the Government's folly.
This would not seem unusual-$4 million after all is peanuts to this Government when it is spending $147 billion in a year, I acknowledge that-but the fact is it is a cost that could have been saved the Canadian taxpayers.
I would not raise it today as a particularly serious matter if it did not add into the list of fumbling and bumbling on financial matters that we have witnessed throughout this session of Parliament, but the Minister of Finance himself in previous statements has raised this cost as something he regards as a very serious waste of money.
I have here some statements by the Minister of Finance that I thought you would enjoy hearing, because, Madam Speaker, these were said of a different time when he was still a Minister but he, of course, was smarting because of further government fumbling and bumbling in financial matters in 1985.
Borrowing Authority
One of the extraordinary things in this country is the approach the business press takes to the Minister of Finance because he is upheld in some quarters as a beacon of reason and right in financial matters. Yet when you look at the record of fumbling and bumbling, one has to wonder why these news editors take that particular position.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Hear, hear!


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I do not understand it. If I were Minister of Finance and I fumbled and bumbled as many things as he has in the last six months, I would quit. But he has not seen fit to do that, he is soldiering on, continuing to fumble and bumble.
Let us hear what he said in 1985. Let me set the stage for this. In 1985 the Senate of Canada received a borrowing Bill from this House and it determined that that borrowing Bill ought not be allowed to pass until the Government of the day had tabled its spending plans in this House so the Senate could see where the money would go. Indeed,- in accordance with constitutional practice, that position on the part of the other place was perfectly proper and perfectly correct. Yet this Government howled and shrieked outrage at the dreadful actions of the other place in holding up the borrowing Bill. The nerve of the other place, the Government kept saying. The Minister of Finance was at the head of the charge in shouting about how dreadful it was that the other place was obstructing a piece of legislation on financial matters from this House. What he did was calculate the cost of holding up the Bill in the other place on the same basis that I have costed the failure of the Government to recall Parliament in a timely way. As reported in Hansard on February 26, 1985 at page 2500, he stated:
Based on the level of interest rates today compared to the amounts of money that could have been raised about two or three weeks ago, and were not raised because of the actions in the other place, the cost to taxpayers has been at least $10 million. Those are the facts, and I ask him to reconsider his position.
The Minister of Finance was answering a question posed by the Leader of the Opposition.
The Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) was making a speech and he quoted a letter written by the Minister of Finance. As reported in Hansard on June 7, 1985 at page 5535, the Minister stated:

June 14, 1989
Borrowing Authority
There were also indirect costs associated with the Senate delay. Although these costs are difficult to measure, it is clear that any interruption in the Government's borrowing program will introduce some confusion and uncertainty into financial markets, if only because the federal government's position in the market forces all other participants to plan around the federal borrowing schedule.
Those Ministers were blaming the Senate for every ill that befell them. Now, when there is a $3 billion or $4 billion cost to Canadians arising out of their failure to recall the Elouse on time, we do not hear a peep.
Why are the Ministers not apologizing to the Canadian people for wasting $4 million of their money that will be taxed out of their hides by the Government in its new tax measures? Why is there not some apology for this fumbling and bumbling?
Why was the Minister of Finance not out at the gates of Rideau Hall when the Prime Minister went to advise Her Excellency to prorogue the last session and postpone the date for recalling Parliament? He should have been there with signs and placards objecting to this procedure. Instead, we do not hear a peep about it. It has been all hushed up. Nothing has been said in the House about it because the Government is ashamed of its record. It is a disgraceful record.
If the Minister of Finance had any common sense or any sense of caring for the people of Canada he was elected to serve, he would resign at once and admit that the Government has fumbled and bumbled every financial measure it has brought before Parliament. It is a shocking disgrace and we should hear some apologies from the other side.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, I am happy to participate in the debate this afternoon on Bill C-ll. Before I get into the substance of my remarks, I wanted to put on the record the fact that I sat here and listened to the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Mrs. Campbell), who has since vacated her seat, and could not help but reflect back over the years of one Liberal Government after another when they made every attempt possible, not only to gut VIA Rail and bring it to an absolute standstill, something they are now accusing this Government of attempting to do, quite accurately, but also in the Hon. Member's own bailiwick of the country in Atlantic Canada, tried three times to shut down Base Summerside. The Hon. Member and her cohorts in the Liberal Party had the unmitigated gall to
stand up today and condemn this Government when they attempted to do the very same thing themselves.
It is that type of duplicity that brings a certain degree of dishonour to this Chamber. One thing we must all at least attempt to do is to bring some intellectual honesty back into this very important forum.
This afternoon I would like to discuss some of the aspects, not only of the borrowing Bill itself, but how in my view the Government is very unwisely not borrowing money in order to spend money on what I consider to be worthwhile projects. I want to touch on the rising costs and the emergency that is developing in municipal infrastructure, and the decay within our cities in terms of water services, sewage disposal, waste treatment plants and indeed the very sidewalks on which we walk and the roads on which we drive.
I also want to talk about something else that relates to ordinary Canadians, and that is older workers' retraining programs which a couple of the provinces has still yet to agree to, and also cuts in VIA Rail and base closures, if I have time.
Our cities and towns are being left to decay by the federal Government's refusal to join with municipal and provincial governments to deal with the problem. This is a growing and critical problem across our country. We see it in the United States in the inner core of its cities, on its interstate highways and bridges which are literally rotting because of the lack of funds at the local and state levels. We are now seeing that here in Canada and indeed we have seen it for several years.
For example, 138 of Ontario's 371 sewage treatment plants do not meet provincial and environmental standards. That applies today in 1989. Only 10 per cent of raw sewage east of Ontario is treated at all.
These days the Government is heralding this tremendous breakthrough in an agreement with the United States on getting control of acid rain emissions. There are arguments for and against the specific details as they were revealed in Washington a day or so ago. There is no question that that is a very important environmental concern.
Right here in our own cities, in that part of Canada that is east of Ontario, only 10 per cent of raw sewage is being treated and the rest of it is being dumped into our waterways and into our lakes. This is an absolute disgrace. This problem was neglected for years by former Liberal governments and it has been neglected by the
June 14, 1989

present Government, although some initiatives of late have been taken, but not nearly enough.
Water quality is of such a concern to Canadians that last year they spent more than $80 million on bottled water. Most of those people are afraid to drink the water that goes into their homes in our municipalities because of all the additives.
The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Milliken) says "rubbish". I hope that the people in Kingston are aware of the problems that they face, and other municipalities face, in terms of safe water for drinking. Perhaps the water is fine in Kingston, or perhaps where I live in Brantford it is fine. However, Canadians who refused to drink out of their own taps spent $80 million to buy bottled water and it is becoming a serious problem.
The value of Canadian water treatment and delivery systems is now more than $100 billion. The bill for the next five years for repairing aging underground pipes is estimated at $3 billion and another $3 billion will be needed to improve water and sewage treatment facilities. That is $6 billion needed by our municipalities over the next five years. There is nothing that I can see in the Estimates that will go to any of those projects to help to solve any of those problems.
According to George Cuff, President of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, municipal governments and the provinces are willing to sit down and discuss funding such rehabilitation programs. The federal Government is not as willing, according to Mr. Cuff.
Another area that touches the day-to-day lives of average Canadians in their homes and on their way to work is the whole area of transportation. The transportation sector, roads and bridges, is the most neglected area of municipal infrastructure today. The Government of Canada levies heavy taxes on the users of gasoline and diesel fuels, yet channels none of those revenues into the road system.
Recently, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) has designated certain highways to be national highways. In doing so, all he has done is to change the name. He has not provided any funding to upgrade those highways, make them safer, or preserve them. Many of our highways are rotting right beneath our eyes and we are doing veiy little about it because the funding is extremely limited. The Government therefore should consider earmarking some of these funds for transportation and
Borrowing Authority
infrastructure. I emphasize that we are talking here in terms of billions of dollars. Local taxpayers on their property assessments who are being gouged for such things as education and other municipal services, cannot be expected raise the other $6 billion just for these two areas alone. This will make owning a house or maintaining a house absolutely prohibitive.
Former Environment Minister, Mr. Tom McMillan, said the Government is unable to act because of the Constitution. That is always a very convenient way out around this place, and it holds no water at all as an argument. The provinces have already said that they are willing to co-operate on any constitutional change or agreement that may be necessary. In fact, a communique issued by the twenty-ninth annual premiers conference in Saskatoon last August stated:
The Premiers agree that the continued competitiveness of the Canadian economy will depend to a significant degree on the maintenance and improvement of vital local infrastructure. A healthy economy as well as healthy and liveable cities, towns and villages depend on having adequate transportation networks, water supplies and sewers.
The Premiers called on the federal Government to support provinces in maintaining municipal infrastructure. We would certainly like to repeat that call here today.
Along with the expenditure of some $6 billion to improve local municipal infrastructures there would be a tremendous job creation program. So we are not talking about throwing money away on making local improvements. We are actually talking about investing money. The program that the FCM has proposed, which is supported by my Party, will create 330,000 person-years of employment over its five-year life span and strengthen communities across the country. FCM president, George Cuff, has said:
Something is wrong with a society that has people, who would rather work, lining up on a crumbling sidewalk to collect UIC benefits.
I would like to speak about another aspect of the borrowing authority and what the Government should be spending money on, or borrowing money to spend money on, which it is not doing or is doing in a haphazard and limited way; that is older worker retraining. One of the great tragedies of the workplace today is the plant closure that throws out of work lifetime workers who have put in 10,15, 25 years. They have reached the age of 45 or 50 and they are thrown out of work through no fault of their own. They find it extremely difficult to find

June 14, 1989
Borrowing Authority
work of a comparable nature or income, if indeed in some parts of the country they can find work at all.
The Government's Bill C-8, the Program for Older Worker Adjustment, sometimes referred to as POWA, implicitly recognizes the inadequacy of current UIC policy to meet the needs of older workers. We are especially concerned that it hinges on provincial ability and willingness to participate. This may offer greater flexibility, but it also encourages disparities. Indeed, some provinces, the Province of Ontario for example, have not completed negotiations with the federal Government. As a result, thousands of older workers in the Province of Ontario are not able to take advantage of the POWA program. Moreover, the total proposed budget for POWA is a mere $60 million. This means that roughly 6,000 workers can be retrained through the program. Currently 415,000 workers aged 55 to 64 are out of work, but only 100,000 of these are considered officially unemployed. Even 100,000 would not make a dent on those figures in terms of re-training.
If all the money that is available at this time is $60 million, that would retrain approximately 6,000 workers. In my constituency of Brant alone, as of February of this year, there were 1,318 workers between the ages of 44 and 64 collecting unemployment insurance. More are now on welfare. CEIC does not have a separate figure for those 55 and over in my constituency. There are 200 to 250 older workers from the Massey Combines plant alone still in need of the type of retraining that a POWA program could offer.
I recall a number of years ago when both White Farm Equipment and more recently Massey Combines shut down and went out of business in the farm implement industry. This had a devastating effect on the lives of hundreds, indeed several thousand workers in my constituency. I fought very hard in those days to get the farm implement industry included on the list for older worker retraining. I will say that this Government did come across and added that class of workers to the program. However I do not know how $60 million is going to go very far toward solving the problem of retraining older workers. For example, in my constituency of Brant, only 30 per cent of older workers who lost their jobs between 1981 and 1984 had found re-employment by January 1986.1 do not have current figures, but I strongly suspect that an awful lot of those workers are still looking for
meaningful work that pays a decent wage. They may have part-time work, work that they are not suited for or at lower rates of income. This is extremely disruptive to their personal lives.
We now have a program to be funded with $60 million; yet in August 1985 the advisory council to the then Minister of Employment and Immigration called for a $1 billion adjustment program for older workers. This Government came up with a figure of $60 million. What we should see implemented is a federally controlled and financed program under the UIC Act which would provide an extension of benefits for this group and would apply to all older workers regardless of the cause and nature of their layoff.
I do not know why they have to limit the benefits of retraining to certain industry sectors. Surely if any industry, city or urban community shuts down, closes its doors and throws older workers out of work, they should automatically come under a national federal retraining program. They should not have to go through all the red tape of having to prove that they belong to a certain industry sector and that that industry sector falls under the POWA agreement. It should be for all displaced older workers, not just those in certain designated industries.
Furthermore, we recommend the following for the POWA program: One, incorporate the earnings based benefit formula into POWA with the minimum benefit being two-thirds of an individual's income; two, provincial and employer participation should be guaranteed through legislation if necessary; three, a job protection board should be established to evaluate layoffs, ensure adequate notice and ensure that the terms of POWA are negotiated before layoffs take effect; and four, a levy grant system to ensure employers contribute to training.
In concluding this part of my address this afternoon, I cannot stress too much the significance of retraining programs for men and women in their middle years of employment. It is an absolute shame in a country as rich as ours that people are thrown out of work, their jobs are terminated and they have virtually nowhere to go except initially part-time jobs or lower paying jobs. All this is extremely disruptive to family planning and budgeting to say nothing of the pall of emotional depression that often settles over families and individuals because of the
June 14, 1989

terrible disruption in their work lives and in their financial income.
I mentioned at the outset that I would like to say a few words about the Government's cut-backs on VIA Rail. The Government is asking for a borrowing authority of some $24.8 billion. Then it turns around and pulls the rug out from underneath VIA Rail. I do not know what kind of thinking is going on in this Cabinet when it comes to transportation. I must say with complete openness and honesty that the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) is one of the great disappointments on this side of the House in terms of this Government. He has shown absolutely no innovative or creative approach to his job. The only approach that he has brought to Transport is to build down, cut back, close, shut down. It has been a totally negative approach. He is fighting change all the way. He is fighting improvements all the way. We already have in place a tremendous network of railroads in this country. We have a huge country. It logically follows that we should be promoting rail traffic for both freight and passenger services, particularly in those areas of the country where it is most difficult to move people around, most of whom cannot afford air travel which is going to get more expensive, not less expensive as the years go by.
Second, as a commuter service alone, there is tremendous justification in the so-called Golden Triangle between Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto. If we increase the effectiveness and efficiency of rail travel between those three centres, it could relieve the pressures at Pearson International Airport, here in Ottawa, and at Dorval. We could reduce the number of inter-city flights by up to 100 a day if the speed at which those trains travel could be increased to a point where they could travel from downtown Ottawa to downtown Toronto in two hours. If the French can do it, we can.
If that service can be provided I suggest that there will be a response from the travelling public. Rather than pulling back and saying it cannot afford it because no one travels by train today, the Government should move ahead to improve the service, the number of trains and
Borrowing Authority
the speed at which they travel. Business people as well as people on holidays will automatically go by train because it is more comfortable. Those who have been around long enough to have travelled on trains long ago would probably suggest that it is a more gracious way to travel.
Trains can solve a very practical problem. It has nothing to do with nostalgia or dreaming in the past. The cost of air transportation is increasing and will continue to increase. The pressure at some of our airports is downright unsafe and extremely costly. Let no one be mistaken about the fact that this Government as well as previous Governments have substantially subsidized air travel.
Finally, our highways certainly in central Canada have reached the point where travelling through Toronto has become almost impossible. The Government's answer to this is to increase the number of buses.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: And cars.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Buses and cars. The province cannot afford to improve our highways, widen them or build any more. Yet the Government is dumping more and larger vehicles onto the highways by cutting back on VIA Rail.
While there were two or three other matters I wanted to raise, I see that my time is up. I appreciate having the opportunity to speak once again to Bill C-ll, an Act to provide borrowing authority.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Madam Speaker, first let me congratulate my colleague for an excellent speech. He touched on a number of matters of interest, but unfortunately I cannot assist him in his predicament of not having enough time to complete his remarks.
I am interested in the issue of VIA Rail cut-backs and the problem that has for us in the future. The New Democratic Party just completed an environmental task force study on the uses and abuses of fossil fuels to learn about what we may look to in the future to assist in cutting back on various emissions.
Will the Hon. Member comment on how the Government's projections for VIA Rail would assist the environment? What suggestions does he have for the

June 14, 1989
Borrowing Authority
Government in the area of VIA Rail and the environment?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: An unbiased question.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Whether it is biased or unbiased, the point is that one of the great issues today is the environment and the negative impact of certain sources of energy on our environment.
We are in the process of attempting to come to grips with acid rain, and it will be extremely costly for our country, the United States and other countries in the world.
At the same time, when it comes to ground transportation, the Conservative Government is doing what it can to reduce the availability of a mode of transportation that is essentially environmentally friendly. I do not have to remind the House that diesel fuel is much less dangerous to the environment than gasoline or jet fuel. Yet the Government is going out of its way to encourage bus companies, trucking companies and airlines to continue to pollute our highways and our air space.
There is a huge infrastructure of rail lines across Canada for the purpose of transportation not only of goods but of people. It is a mode of transportation that should be encouraged, modernized, updated and expanded because its effect on the environment is minimal.
The slogan of the Conservative Government during the last election was "the Party who could manage change". It is changing things all right, and I guess it is managing it, but it is a change from the 1980s back to the 1920s in most respects. It cannot visualize or anticipate what is leading us into the next century. The Conservatives are unable to come to grips with it because of its doctrinaire conservative approach that is more reminiscent of my grandfather's day than mine.
The railroad is not a relic of the past. One need only go to Europe to see that it is a vehicle that is adaptable to change. The environment is certainly a very important consideration in adapting a rail system to the modem era. It is environmentally friendly in the sense that it has a minimal negative impact on the environment.


David Stupich: Madam Speaker, I too am interested in my colleague's remarks about VIA Rail. Petitions have been presented in the House urging the Government to maintain VIA Rail service and improve it. The people who built the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway on Vancouver Island received tremendous acreage in land and substantial resources from the Government in exchange for building that railroad. They were obliged to continue the passenger service. I expect the same holds true for VIA Rail services all across Canada.
Do the railways have a legal obligation to maintain that service, and did VIA Rail assume that obligation when it was organized? Is there a possibility that citizens who have shown in great numbers that they want that service continued will take to court the railways, VIA Rail or the Government to enforce upon them the original obligation to maintain the passenger and freight service by rail in Canada in all railways that have been built with government assistance?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member poses a very interesting legal proposition. I am not a lawyer but it might be interesting to hear the Government in Ottawa suggest that if CP, CN, or VIA as one of its chattels, terminated passenger service it would have to give up title to the land that the Government of Canada very graciously gave it in the 19th century as part of the recompense for the outlay and cost of putting the railways through in the first place.
Conservatives and some Liberals would like to argue that the great iron horse went across this country primarily on private initiative and private money. No such thing ever happened. Any Canadian historian worth his salt knows that over 50 per cent of the money which went into the building of the CPR came from the public treasury and not the private treasury. Yet, successive Liberal and Conservative Governments have the unmitigated gall to stand up now when we need the railways and say: "Okay, fine, you can shut them down." In fact, this Government is doing everything it can to close them down, but it does not dare tamper with the lands, with its private vested interest which it got for the purpose of maintaining the railroad as a recompense or as a source of revenue in order to pay back its private debts.
June 14, 1989

I think it would be very, very interesting if the word went out that unless The Government continues to provide that service, it would lose its land and property.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Further questions or comments. Resuming debate.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have had a discussion with the Minister of Public Works (Mr. MacKay) and with the Hon. Member for Regina Wascana (Mr. Schneider). I believe that in light of the proceedings about to be undertaken at another place some distance from the Hill, it might be appropriate to release the pages at five o'clock in order that they can proceed to attend there. I wonder if there could be a disposition on the part of the House to permit them to leave at 5 p.m?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I think the Members have heard the suggestion from the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Milliken). If there is unanimous consent in the House, the Chair would be very pleased to use this small way to say thank you to our pages for their dedication and their hard work all through the year. I think it would be a nice occasion for all Members to join me in thanking them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain.


Elizabeth  (Beth) Phinney: Madam Speaker, I rise today to express deep concerns about Bill C-ll. When one looks at the big picture objectively, this Bill appears to be quite a paradox. Does it not seem odd that this Government, constantly reminding Canadians about the magnitude of our national debt, attempting to foster a sense of fiscal paranoia in this country, now comes before this House seeking the authority to borrow more than $29 billion. Yes, Madam Speaker, more than $29 billion at a time when restraint is the catch word of this Government. It seems that this Government knows how to say restraint but it certainly does not know how to practice it.
Aside from being the masters of the "do as I say, not as I do" mentality, the Government further complicates matters by ignoring the essential needs of Canadians. To
Borrowing Authority
add insult to injury, this Government first breaks election promises nearly every day. It ignores the basic demands and needs of Canadians. Then it comes before this House seeking borrowing authority for more than $29 billion.
Yesterday, the Government made all that I have said abundantly clear. Yesterday, in this House, the Government flatly rejected a motion which was not critical of the Government, nor did it imply any wrongdoing on the part of the Government. Yesterday, the Government uncategorically rejected a motion which in the most gentle way urged the Government to assist those in our society who desperately need support.
The motion simply requested, and I quote: "that this House call upon the Government to take steps to enhance the federal commitment to the support of post-secondary education, scientific and technological development, job training and re-training, and the battle against illiteracy, all of which provide the essential foundation for building a strong and competitive future for Canada."
Yet this Government rejected that motion. It rejected a motion which was directed at helping the needy in our society. It is a motion which the Government should have been proud to support. What kind of Government would vote against helping the unemployed, the untrained and the illiterate? In short, what Government would vote against a better future?
It is in this light that I must query the Government's priorities. Before us lies an issue which has received pitiful little attention, illiteracy. Illiteracy is a national problem which has reached astonishingly high proportions. The costs of illiteracy are staggering. Aside from being an affront to the dignity of each individual, it places a heavy financial burden on the business community and a tremendous burden on Canadian society.
As a developed nation, a nation which has free and compulsory education, Canada's commitment to human dignity has been hollow. It is appalling that such a wonderful nation as ours, which claims to have one of the highest standards of living in the world, also has a rate of illiteracy that stands at nearly 20 per cent. That means that virtually one of every four adult Canadians is functionally illiterate.

June 14, 1989
Borrowing Authority
Just last September, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulro-ney) stated, in an address on literacy in Toronto, and I quote: "The urgency of the literacy issue is compelling in both social and economic terms. With one Canadian in four functionally illiterate, we run the risk of two societies, composed of those who can read and those who cannot. We will not have two Canada's in the socio-economic sense any more than in the constitutional sense. We want one Canada, united, prosperous, with equal opportunities for all our citizens".
Wonderful words, but it is quite clear that this promise belongs on the shelf with all the rest of the Government's broken promises. The Prime Minister also stated that the problem of illiteracy is costing Canadians $10 billion per year. As I mentioned earlier, this Government is providing $22 million per year.
Many believe that illiteracy is an imported problem, that immigrants to Canada unnecessarily boost this number. Nothing could be further from the truth. Some 78 per cent of the functionally illiterate in Canada were bom right here in Canada.
The problem of illiteracy is linked uncategorically to the greatest indignity of all: poverty. Sixty per cent of Canada's functionally illiterate are unemployed. In this vicious circle, the unemployed illiterate population are not looking for jobs. They are not looking because they cannot find jobs. When they do find jobs, they cannot keep them.
Where does one look for a job when he or she cannot read the want ads, cannot read the classified and cannot even read the yellow pages? What purpose do employment centres serve for the functionally illiterate when they cannot read any instructions?
Imagine, Madam Speaker, the humiliation of having to tell a prospective employer that you are unable to fill out even a simple application for employment. Imagine the embarrassment of being unable to submit an application for a social insurance number.
Aside from the humiliation and suffering which illiteracy causes individuals, it also entails overwhelming costs for society. In financial terms, the over-all effect of illiteracy on the economy is staggering.
The Canadian Business Task Force on Literacy has estimated that the problem costs upward of $4 billion annually to the business community. These costs include $1.6 billion for industrial accidents. These are accidents which could and should be avoided were it not for the inability to read warning signs printed on machinery.
The social costs of illiteracy are equally staggering. In economic terms the costs include higher unemployment, lack of trainability and higher social assistance payments.
As well, there are the non-economic effects of illiteracy on society. We are aware that within the international arena, literacy is one of the variables used to measure the rate of a nation's development. What statement is made when Canada has such a horrendously high rate of illiteracy?
Clearly, this is a massive problem. It is a condition which is continually spreading. It costs the business community billions of dollars each year, chips away at Canada's reputation, adds costs to Canada's ever increasing assistance programs and, most of all, belittles and humiliates individuals in this great land. When one really looks at the situation objectively one sees that Canada's sparkle is fading quite rapidly.
Thus, we must do more to combat the problem of illiteracy. We must take a bold new initiative, an offensive against this indignity. In September, 1988, the Government launched what appeared to be such an offensive. Today, less than 12 months later, we are able to see exactly how inadequate those measures have been. Today, we are able to recognize exactly how insincere the Government has been.
A $110 million program was announced at that time. We soon realized that this amount was to be invested over five years, thus, $22 million per year. In comparison to the National Capital Commission's lawn-watering annual budget of $105 million, the amount becomes much less impressive.
In terms of dollars and cents-since that is the only language this Government seems to understand-it is fiscally irresponsible to vote $22 million toward a problem which extracts $4 billion to $10 billion from the economy. More important, it is hypocritical and deceiving of the Government to profess a sincere interest in this issue and contribute what equals only $5 per illiterate Canadian over five years.

Such token gestures as this will not solve the problem of illiteracy. It will barely make a dent in the problem. This Government would have more luck trying to empty Lake Ontario with a bucket.
In closing, I would like to urge the House to reject this Bill. It is ludicrous that the Government would come before the House seeking borrowing authority when it has neglected crucial social and economic concerns. The Government deserves no more from this House than it has given the needy of Canada.


Gilbert Parent: Madam Speaker, I was particularly interested in the discourse given by the Hon. Member from Hamilton. I believe that illiteracy is one of the most serious problems in Canada today.

We all know that of those now going to school, about 55 per cent, I believe, graduate after 4 or 5 years, in Ontario. We also know that of the remaining 40 per cent, many cannot even read.
So I hope that the Government will be able to solve this problem.

A question to my hon. colleague is as follows. Is there any estimate as to the cost in dollars of illiteracy? Is there a price-tag on it as to what we as a nation lose because some of our citizens are unable to function in a society which demands that they be able to read and write so that they will know what is expected of them in terms of exactly what they are doing in our society?


Elizabeth  (Beth) Phinney: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has mentioned what the cost is to Canada. The business community has said that it would cost it $4 billion to be able to cope adequately with the problem. However, the Prime Minister informed us that with the social costs included, including unemployment, et cetera, the costs per year to Canadians because of this problem is $10 billion.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about another government borrowing Bill arising out of the Budget. This will be the fifteenth or sixteenth time that I have done this, I think.
I want to start off by saying that I am still an innocent stubble-jumping prairie boy who has still yet to receive an answer from eight or nine Ministers of Finance. I keep asking the question almost annually. How does
Borrowing Authority
raising interest rates hold down or reduce inflation? I have never been able to understand how it happens, since raising interest rates raises the prices and the costs of every citizen, whether it is with respect to a mortgage, a car payment or groceries. It also raises the costs of Government. When costs are raised prices are raised, as are wages and dividends, which raises inflation.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Not to mention blood pressure.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: As my colleague says, then everybody's blood pressure goes up.
I can never figure it out. When I did some more checking I found that for every 1 per cent increase in the interest rate it costs the Government of Canada an extra $1.5 billion. Since 1984, the rise in interest rates is costing the Government somewhere between $4 billion and $5 billion extra which it must raise. I suspect that some part of that is in this borrowing Bill. However, I am still waiting for an explanation.
As a famous philosopher said many years ago, "Economists are like theologians. Every religion other than their own is an invention of man, whereas their own is an emanation from God". It was Karl Marx who said that.
Then there was another fellow who in about 1856 said this: "Labour is prior and superior to capital, and without labour capital cannot function". I ask my Tory and Liberal colleagues who said that.
They do not seem to want to bite, Madam Speaker. It was not Karl Marx. It was Abraham Lincoln who said that, the second time he ran for Congress.
The point of the matter is that if there is full employment then inflation, deficits and national debts are reduced.
Members of the Government keep saying that we do not propose anything. I would like to suggest to the Government two ways to knock some $6.6 billion off this borrowing Bill. It is very simple. It is a matter I have raised in every budget speech or budget Bill since 1969. At that time deferred corporation taxes were not very high. They now stand at $36 billion. The deferred corporation taxes which began in the early 1950s was a device to allow corporations to defer taxes on the theory that the corporation would reinvest in its plants, expand production, put people to work, increase exports-all those things. They did. They reinvested all right, international Nickel, Canadian Pacific, Bell Telephone reinvested in copper mines, coal mines and zinc mines in Guatemala, Chile, Indonesia, Mexico and other parts of Central America. They invested all right but there were

June 14, 1989
Borrowing Authority
3,000	guys laid off in Sudbury. They reinvested but they did not do it here.
If these corporations were to be charged 10 per cent interest on their deferred taxes, which I think is less than the current bank rate, which would be a real deal, one would pick up $3.6 billion this year which could be knocked off the borrowing Bill. Then, if the Governor of the Bank of Canada were told that he has two choices, either lower interest rates by 2 per cent over the next months or be fired, that would save the Government between now and this time next year another $3 billion.
Another point I want to make is about all the nonsense and mythology we hear about deficits and debt. We in Canada financed our Second World War effort ourselves. During the "dirty thirties" the unemployment rate hit 15 per cent. In 1932 it was a catastrophic 22 per cent. When the war started in 1939 and once the war effort was in high gear, unemployment was replaced with a critical labour shortage.
The vast sums spent by the Canadian Government on the war effort were raised entirely within Canada. They were provided by Canadian taxpayers and the Canadian banking system. Not one cent was needed from outside the country. I do not see that in the financial columns, the editorial pages or in the words of economists.
Those expenditures had absolutely no economic value. They were worse than wasteful because they were intentionally destructive. Imagine what would happen if we did the same thing with the declaration of peace as we did with the declaration of war. We could mobilize the people of Canada and marshal the resources and the savings of the people of Canada to reduce unemployment to at least 3 per cent.
For every one percentage point unemployment is reduced, Government tax revenues at the federal level alone are increased by $1 billion a year. Yet we keep
following the mythology that has been carried on from the "dirty thirties" until now.
People say that Governments are like individuals, they have to live within their means. They cannot spend more than they take in. Most individuals spend more than they take in anyway, and seem to survive somehow or other. However, Governments of all stripes at all levels do that all the time.
What the experts, the editorialists and columnists do not tell us is that there is a fundamental difference between the debts of an individual citizen or corporation and those of a Government. The difference is that the individual has to pay off those debts out of his own earnings, savings and borrowings while a Government, particularly a federal Government, can do something that an individual or a company cannot do. A Government can tax the people to whom it owes the money in order to pay those people. That difference is what destroys the mythology of Governments having to live within their means.
During the war, we borrowed $100 billion a year. By the time the war was over, we had paid off a lot of those borrowings but in 1946 there was a national debt which, translated into 1988-89 dollars, would not be $400 billion but would be $900 billion. Frankly, I am sick and tired of hearing this so-called conventional wisdom when it is really conventional stupidity. In fact, stupidity has been stretched to its longest lengths ever. It has given incompetence a good name.
Between 80 per cent and 90 per cent of the national debt, this year's deficit, is money we owe to ourselves, Canada Savings Bonds, guaranteed investment certificates and Canadian bank loans, money that Canadians have loaned to the Government of Canada. People say that every man, woman and child owes $8,000 toward the national debt. The national debts of India, Pakistan, and Zimbabwe translate into $200 for every man, woman and child in those countries. If we listen to the experts here in North America, then Canada should be in a much worse mess than the Indians, the Pakistanis and the Zimbabweans because they only owe $200 per man, woman and child, while we owe 40 times that much. We each owe $8,000. Maybe the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) should go to those three countries to ask for some foreign aid.

What kind of nonsense are they giving us? What kind of stupidity are they asking us to believe? They continue to do it backward. They have failed entirely to learn the lessons of the past, and therefore they are condemned to repeat the same mistakes at the cost of employment and to the deprivation of millions of Canadians just for the sake of the Gnomes of Zurich, the idiots in the nether regions of the Department of Finance.
I have shown how the Government could knock $6.6 billion off this borrowing Bill. Now I want to show how it could add about $8 billion to it. Why is this so? If money is borrowed simply to pay off other debts, it is not self-liquidating, it is a dead-weight debt. Let us borrow another $8 billion a year and let us put $1 billion into VIA Rail over the next five years, re-equip it and give it faster schedules so that it can succeed. Let us put enough money into cleaning up our air and water, putting a quarter of a million Canadians to work over the next five years. Let us put enough money into chronic care beds, hospital expansions and hospital equipment. I watched a spectacle in my own city. Hospital administrators were begging on their hands and knees on the streets like beggars trying to get donations to buy equipment. That is how Tories who claim to support medicare when they opposed it support it now. Let us invest money in that. Let us make the Port of Churchill a seven-month-a-year port, not three. Let us make something of it. We are a northern country. When are we going to start acting like one?
We need a million units over the next four or five years, senior citizens' housing, co-op housing, low-income housing and chronic care beds. That is another $3 billion or $4 billion. But those are not expenditures, those are investments. I say that because all the people you put to work pay taxes and the revenues received by the federal and provincial governments will more than pay off those borrowings. The new equipment for VIA Rail alone will pay for itself in five to seven years. We put almost as much money into fixing up old locomotives and old railway cars as what new ones would have cost. Amtrak is way ahead of us in the United States. The U.S. re-equipped Amtrak and the government would not allow the American railways to overcharge Amtrak for the use of the rails. Let us make CNR and CPR give $80 million back that VIA Rail got stuck for in paying for that
Borrowing Authority
old worn out equipment. The U.S. Government did not do that with Amtrak in the United States.
VIA Rail, before it sold its first ticket, before the first train even moved out of the railway station, was in debt for over $100 million just in start-up costs alone. It started out with the deck stacked against it. VIA Rail has never in 12 years, since 1976, been given a chance. It has been hobbled continually by the previous Liberal Government and its three Ministers of Transport as well as the present Tory Government with three successive Ministers of Transport. They do not know how to run a railroad or much else. But who is running the affairs of this country? The people in the Bank of Canada and the Department of Finance, and they are not interested in how you put Canadians to work. A full employment policy is the only solution to reducing deficits and the national debt. That was done during the Second World War.
But all the things we can and should be doing in other parts of the world that puts Canadians to work who pay taxes in five, eight or ten years could wipe out an annual deficit and reduce the national debt to a few billion. That debt could be cleaned up in one year or subsequent years.
Why do we keep making the same mistakes we made in the 1930s and 1940s? Well, we quit making the same mistakes in the 1940s, 1950s and in the first half of the 1960s then we reverted back to the 1920s. I ask why for goodness' sake we cannot just reverse what we have been doing? I know the usual line will come out. The NDP are the big spenders. Well, the New Democrats are the big investors. We are the ones who took over a province that was totally bankrupt, that could not borrow a nickel anywhere in Canada or the rest of the world. We paid that debt off and left office with a surplus of $400 million. After seven years of Tories we now have a debt of $4 billion in my little province. But during the course of the NDP years in office, we electrified 60,000 farms, brought in hospitalization and medicare and 100,000 miles of grid roads. We know how to do it because we have done it. We are not going to put up and listen to this nonsense we have been getting from successive Ministers of Finance to keep borrowing money and throwing good money after bad for borrowings that were totally unnecessary and unneeded.
I have shown the Government two ways to knock $6 billion off the borrowing Bill. I have proposed several means of adding $8 billion to it. I say put the people of

June 14, 1989
Borrowing Authority
Canada to work and you will pay off the $8 billion in the next two years. That is the route to go. It is the only way to go.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Madam Speaker, I have been here all day listening with rapt attention to the speeches delivered, particularly the last one by the Hon. Member. I have been examining the lengthy Bill C-ll, which contains all of three sections. The interesting thing that I have noted about this Bill is how deceptively simple it is for the magnitude of what it is doing and upon which it is based.
For example, in Clause 2 we see that the Government wants a mere $24.8 billion. For what? For items that may be required for public works and general purposes. Those are pretty broad and nebulous four words, "public works and general purposes". Were we ever told what these public works and general purposes were? I guess we were. In the Budget that was delivered by this Government, or shall we say announced on television instead of delivered to the House of Commons, we were told what the Government's plans were going to be. Over the course of today during the heckling and questions which have taken place, over the course of debate on the Budget, virtually all of the speakers, the hecklers and the questioners on the government side have spent a lot of time telling us about past sins of our colleagues in past Liberal administrations.
That is not the issue. The issue is not who caused the prohlem of the deficit but what the solution is going to be and how to solve the problem. We all agree that our financial house must be brought into order. So the question Canadians are asking themselves is very simply, was this Government honest with Canadians about the country's financial affairs and its proposed agenda to deal with them? I say no. I say that because Canadians must ask themselves a series of fundamental questions about what this Government's financial agenda is and what this Government is going to use billions and billions of dollars for over the period of the next year.
I ask, were Canadians told prior to November, 1988 that our national debt was crushing and the deficit was
unmanageable and unbearable? No, they were not told that. In fact, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that people were not listening to him. What did the Prime Minister say? We were listening to him. He and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), in fact, painted a very rosy picture. The Prime Minister said, "We have tackled the deficit". "Our promises"-and at that time they totalled about $15 billion-"are all within Michael Wilson's fiscal framework. Every nickel has been accounted for". We have heard that quote many times.
When the Prime Minister was speaking on the Government's proposed child care program, which amounted at that time to approximately $6.4 billion, he said: "It is a program that the nation can afford in our current fiscal circumstances and within the budgetary framework we have set". A few days before the election, when responding to a news report that the deficit would rise, his Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) stated that was not accurate, stressing that the Department of Finance had no projections showing a higher deficit. In view of the Budget and in view of the request by the Government for moneys to pay for what it intends to do, we know that those predictions were untrue. We know that the Tories were not honest with the Canadian people.
During the election campaign, did the Government tell us that 45 per cent of our public debt, fully $145 billion, had been accumulated since 1984? The answer is no. We heard a Member in an earlier speech taunting a Member on this side of the House when she was giving her speech on that very point. Were we told that over the past four years the Conservative Government has raised sales and income taxes 25 times? No, we were not. Were we told that the Government would financially completely pull out of the unemployment insurance program, as suggested in the Budget, leaving it to Canadian workers and employers to pay more?
Were we told that VIA Rail would be emasculated? Were we told that the vaunted Tory commitment to defence would be demonstrated by such courageous actions as budget reductions and closures of bases?
June 14, 1989

I do not ask whether Members or Canadians agree or disagree. I ask, were they told? Were they told that social programs such as unemployment insurance and old age pensions would be tinkered with? Were they told , that foreign aid would be slashed? Were they told that average Canadians' taxes have risen 60 per cent in the last four years, while the taxes of those earning more than $100,000 have risen by only approximately 8 per cent? Were they told that they would pay, in addition to all the other taxes the Government is asking them to pay, in order that the Government can borrow $24.8 billion, an additional 9 per cent goods and services tax on virtually everything? Were they told that the Government would abandon its child care commitment? No. Canadians were not told that.
The issue is not whether Canadians agree or disagree with some or all of those measures. Naturally, there will be people on both sides of the issue. Rather, the issue is the failure of the Government to come clean with Canadians.
What about integrity? Last month the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) stated that Canadians were not listening to him during the election campaign. That is not true. Canadians were listening carefully, but they were misled.
The Tories tried to blame past Liberal Governments, but almost half of today's debt was accumulated in only four short years of Tory Government. The stated purpose of the Budget is to control the deficit. Yet, the deficit continues to rise. It is higher today and it will be higher tomorrow than what it was before, notwithstanding the stated purpose to control it, and in fact reduce it. The Tories have had almost five years to do something, yet both the debt and the deficit have only increased. What is the answer? The Prime Minister blames this not on bad fiscal management, but on previous Liberal administrations. Where is his integrity?
Some Canadians criticize the Opposition for criticizing the Budget. What would they do? Would they entice the Canadian electorate with election candy and then hit them over the head with a financial sledgehammer? At my monthly public forums, I have asked my constituents how they would deal with the problems. As might be expected, there were many suggestions, including controlling interest rates, eliminating capital cost allowances and corporate write-offs not allowed to ordinary Canadians, eliminating or tightening up federal grants, lessening military spending, temporary across the board
Borrowing Authority
cut-backs in government spending, and many other suggestions.
Naturally, at those public forums, no one agreed entirely on all the solutions. However, what we did agree on is that Canadians can and do expect to be told honestly and with integrity that we face a problem and the proposed solution to that problem. Instead, after the election, of course, the Government told us to tighten our belts without having first told us in advance that it would take our pants off.
The Government wants to borrow $24.8 billion and more to come. What do we get for it? It is up to us as Canadians to decide which we want: deception and double-talk, or honesty and integrity, for we will inevitably get the kind of government we deserve.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure today to speak against the borrowing Bill. The Government is requesting borrowing authority for $24 billion of taxpayers' money. In the preamble to the Bill, it can be seen that we have an accumulated deficit that exceeds $320 billion. This year's estimated deficit is approximately $30 billion.
When one looks back at the election last November, the deficit was not a very high priority. I do not recall at any time during the election when the deficit was an item of debate.
What were items of debate were the promises that the Government was prepared to offer to the taxpayers of Canada with their own hard-earned money. The promises from the Government totalled almost $20 billion. Was the Government worried about the deficit at that time? It seems not. The Government certainly did not mention it. Were they worried about the impact of the increased expenditures that those promises would bring? It does not appear so.
The Tory election promises presented certain expectations to Canadians, particularly in the areas of day care and environmental priorities.
During the election campaign, I clearly remember the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) indicated strongly that they were not promises. They were commitments that the Government was willing to make and stand by. It is interesting because now that the election has been fought and won and the dust has settled, where are the promises? Where are the commitments? Suddenly the Government has been re-awakened with the need of pressing financial priorities. Suddenly, it has discovered that there is a deficit to deal with. It was strange that was

June 14, 1989
Borrowing Authority
not understood during the election when the Government made $20 billion worth of promises to the Canadian people.
The deficit suddenly became critical only after the election. The commitments that were made during the election suddenly disappeared. There is no doubt in my mind, as there is no doubt in the minds of every Canadian across this land, that this election was bought. But it is not going to be paid for. Those commitments have already been broken. As a result of the Draconian measures taken in this present Budget, Canadians will find that they will have less disposable income. There will be less to put on the table. There will be more unemployment. There will be less economic development. There will be less in social programs, programs such as unemployment insurance which the Government is now opting out of and placing the responsibility and the burden upon the unemployed worker and the small business community, transferring money from the insurance side of the program to the job creation side.
I do not believe any Member in this House has any problem focusing on the need for job creation. We have been talking about that for some time now; particularly in areas such as the interior of my province of British Columbia where unemployment still exceeds 17 per cent, areas such as the Maritimes where the unemployment figures are just as discouraging. We do not question the need for job creation. We understand that it is a necessity. However, we do not believe that the Government should remove the funds from the insurance side of unemployment insurance in order to finance these kinds of programs.
Back on October 13 at a public meeting in St. John's, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made a statement which was quoted in the local press. He said as follows:
The federal Government has a responsibility for regional development in the interest of national unity and as well as in the interest of fairness. We can't have two Canadas-We will not have one Canada that is prospering at the centre while the other regions do not receive a fair share of economic opportunity.
The very nature of the programs that this Government seeks to introduce through this Budget put a lie to these words of the Prime Minister.
Just look around. The economy in Southern Ontario is fairly robust. We saw in the paper just the other day that unemployment levels are down in the area of 3 per cent to 3.5 per cent. Some areas of this country are doing quite well, but other areas of this country are hurting and hurting badly. Because of the direction that this Government is taking by pulling back from those regional economic development programs, by pulling back on funding from Western Diversification, by pulling back on funding to the Atlantic Opportunities Agency it is in fact exacerbating the problem of regional disparities. Over the next few years when the impact of this Budget is felt, regional disparities will increase, not decrease.
I want to talk about my province for a moment, British Columbia, with respect to regional development. All nine of the economic and regional agreements between British Columbia and the federal Government are due to expire in March 1990. Funding arrangements are being reconsidered. That is about as much as we get, that they are being reconsidered, but if that reconsideration is similar to what is happening with agreements in the other provinces where in fact renegotiation is not even taking place, I ask the Members of this House what can the Province of British Columbia expect when its regional economic development agreements expire next year?
I believe there are about five provincial agreements that have expired as of the passing of the last fiscal year. Are they being renegotiated? They are twisting in the wind. Many of the regional economic development programs that were funded through those joint venture federal-provincial agreements are simply stalled for lack of funding. The forest resource development agreement in British Columbia is worth $300 million over its five-year term, $150 million of that from the federal Government, $150 million of that from the provincial Government. British Columbia is attempting to negotiate its second five-year term.
This is one area that has been working reasonably well. The present agreement for forestry, the ERDA Agreement for British Columbia, has in fact created 100,000 jobs during its term to date. It has had some important aspects for the forestry industry in that province. It has
June 14, 1989

provided for the growth of seedlings, the planting of seedlings, site preparation, the development of silviculture programs. It has provided for weeding and thinning of tree farms and it has provided for basic forestry research. It has provided job creation both in the short term and in the long term.
That second forest regional development agreement will be badly needed because we have only just started to replenish the backlog of NSR lands that British Columbia has accumulated. We have only just started to recognize the extent of the problem in the Province of British Columbia which has the lion's share of the forestry industry in this country. We have only just begun to recognize the critical need to fund the replanting of trees.
When you fly over British Columbia, and I do it almost every weekend, you realize the extent of the devastation of our forests. You realize just how much of our forests have been cut down, have been cleared off and are left lying fallow with the land eroding, the minerals leaching out of the soil, making it more and more difficult for future forestry projects. The regional development agreements for forestry are badly needed in British Columbia, as I am sure they are badly needed in all provinces that have forestry as an industrial base. It is not the time to cut these programs off at the knees. It is not the time for retrenchment in terms of the economic development potential of these regional development programs. It is a false economy, and this Government will live to regret the day if it cancels those programs. Forestry is British Columbia's most important industry. The livelihood of thousands of people in British Columbia depends upon the continuation of those federal-provincial agreements.
I want to turn very briefly to an area of particular concern that is also relevant in terms of the discussion of this budget. That is the impact that the Free Trade Agreement has had in our industrial sector. As we discussed earlier in the House today, there was a recent announcement in the Province of Quebec that Consumers Packaging in Ville St. Pierre would be closing its plant, laying off about 460 workers. We also heard that Consumers Packaging, which is in a monopoly position in glass manufacturing in Canada, is also slated to close one of two western plants in Alberta and in my riding of
Borrowing Authority
Okanagan-Shuswap in British Columbia. If the Alberta plant closes, 300 jobs are on the line. If the British Columbia plant closes, 450 jobs are on the line.
When I began to look at the reasons behind these closures, I found that there was a string of very solid evidence to demonstrate just what is happening to the glass manufacturing industry in Canada. In fact, in my discussions with representatives of the industry, with the chief executive officer of the parent company, Enfield Corporation, we find that Consumers Packaging is having a very difficult time going up against the large American giants in the glass manufacturing industry. We also find that in the Free Trade Agreement there are provisions to reduce and eliminate over a 10 year period the Canadian tariff structures on glass product imports into Canada. We also find that as those tariffs are reduced, the Canadian manufacturing industry will find it increasingly more difficult to remain competitive with their American counterparts. Those are not my words, they are the words of the chief executive office of Enfield Corporation, which is the parent company of Consumers Packaging.
We have solid evidence that this Canadian glass manufacturing industry is in fact rationalizing its production. In other words, I am talking about closing plants and laying off workers. Some 900 jobs are at stake with the plant closing in Quebec and one plant closing out west, whether it be in my riding or the one in Alberta.
The Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) had the audacity to get up today and bombastically comment on the good things that the trade agreement has brought to areas such as mine in the Okanagan- Shuswap. If the loss of 450 jobs is good news, I sure as hell hate to see what bad news is. Another interesting aspect is that Consumers Packaging also owns 10 plants in the United States. Is it closing the plants in the United States? No. Is it cutting back production in the plants in the United States? Not to the best of my knowledge. The plants are closing in Quebec and possibly Alberta or British Columbia. Two plants are closing in Canada, which means, to anybody who can put two and two together, that the industry is moving out of Canada and possibly relocating south of the border where the per

June 14, 1989
Borrowing Authority
unit production cost of manufacturing glass products is lower.


An Hon. Member:: You lost that argument last winter.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: I say to the Hon. Member that this argument is far from lost. We are only now beginning to see the kind of economic impact that this Free Trade Agreement will bring to the people. This argument is far from over.


An Hon. Member:: The election is over.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: This is only one example of the kind of economic impact that the rationalization of industry can hold when it has gone head to head with American counterparts in light of the tariff reductions through trade. Many Members on the other side of the House and many members of the business community have said this is the reality of life. To some extent, perhaps they are right. However, I want to remind the House that the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) made a commitment during the election that any jobs lost through the trade agreement would be recovered through a massive restructuring program and job creation program that would be assured by the Government if the Free Trade Agreement saw the light of day.
We are in the middle of free trade now, but I do not see any evidence of that massive job creation program that was promised by the Government.
I want to turn to another area of concern, an industry that I think will be hit probably the hardest as a result of the effects of free trade. It is the tourism industry.
Apart from the lip service which the Government gave earlier in terms of providing tourism with the kind of profile that is needed to recognize it as the growth industry of the future, the Government has continued to keep the tourism ministry buried within the bowels of the larger ministry, that being the Department of Industry, Science and Technology. What a strange place for tourism to be hidden. If an industry is going to be given the profile it needs, it must be given a full fledged ministry. The Tourism Industry Association of Canada has been calling for that for some time. The Government has not kept its commitment. The removal of the Regional Economic Development Programs, of which
tourism programs are a part, will make it increasingly difficult for this industry to develop the kind of marketing and product development that is needed in our regions across the country.
I realize that my time is up. I will simply conclude by saying that there is much at fault with the current Budget. I believe that the economic impact of the Budget will be felt for some time, particularly throughout the further regions of this country.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I would be happy to see the clock if other Members want, but I will profitably use the three minutes remaining. In addressing the economic programs of the Government in such a short time, it is hard to decide on which of the many things one wants to talk about.
In the three minutes that I have, I would like to speak about the proposal to close military bases in depressed and developing regions of our country which would benefit tremendously from having these continue, as they are a very important part of those communities.
When I heard the announcement, it reminded me of a tactic I learned about in the United States known as the Washington Monument ploy. I learned about this from a cabinet colleague in the United States who said that when the Department of the Interior ever faced the prospect of a budget cut, it would put up a sign announcing that the Washington Monument would be closed because of cut-backs in its budget. This monument is visited by 3,000 people an hour and, within a couple of hours, the Department of the Interior would have the crowd lobbying on Capital Hill to keep the expenditures of the Department of the Interior intact.
I had a similar experience once as Solicitor General, when the Mounties were asked to cut their budget. They came back telling me that the first thing to be cut would be the Musical Ride.
When I saw that the base at Summerside would be closed, I thought instantly of the Washington Monument ploy. When one goes to the heart of it, it is an attempt by bureaucrats to get the public on their side in a battle against politicians. For the purposes of this argument, I am not saying that the Government should not always look for cuts that it can make in the Budget, but when
June 14, 1989

Borrowing Authority
the Department of National Defence came back with that as its cut, I fault the Government for not asking the officials to find other ways in which cuts could be produced that would not cause so much suffering in the region. I look forward to continuing with the Washington Monument ploy tomorrow.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 15, 1989