1990-04-30

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, February 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis that Bill C-26, an act to amend the Railway Act (grain and flour subsidies), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Ms. Clancy (p. 8227).
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate today on Bill C-26, and in particular to address the amendment by my colleague, the member for Halifax, that this bill be put over for six months and, hopefully, not returned.
Bill C-26 bears a rather inoffensive title: "An Act to amend the Railway Act (grain and flour subsidies)". However, as the agricultural community knows, and the farmers and the transportation community in Atlantic Canada in particular know, especially those involved with the ports of Halifax and Saint John, the innocuous title of the bill betrays its real purposes.
This is a bill, in fact, which purports to give ex post legitimacy to the elimination of a statutory subsidy, the at and east subsidy which has been in place since 1966 on the eastward movement of export grain and flour. This is a subsidy which is enshrined in the Railway Act and which was eliminated without recourse to Parliament on July 16 of last year.
Bill C-26 is an act to effectively shut down the grain terminals at Saint John and Halifax and to shut these
ports out of the movement of Canadian grain and flour for export. It is an act to limit competition. It is an act to limit the alternative routes of transportation for the movement of a vital Canadian export and a vital Canadian commodity and to withdraw one more component in the web of support that is so essential to the marketing and movement of our Canadian agricultural products and the support of our agricultural community, be it in eastern Canada, central Canada or western Canada.
It is an act to penalize, through higher feed costs, our livestock producers in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, and to make it even more difficult for them to remain viable, to supply local markets and to generate an export surplus for the Atlantic economy to contribute to the export base of our economy. This act will result in higher feed grain costs and higher food costs for Atlantic consumers as these costs are passed on.
Bill C-26 is an act of contempt for Parliament. It is an act of contempt for the rightful role of this Chamber to debate government initiatives, in particular government initiatives arising from statutes of Parliament before these initiatives are implemented.
In this case, the deed has already been done. The at and east subsidy has been removed. On July 16, 1989, it stopped. The day Bill C-26 was read to this House, before there was ever any debate about it, the at and east subsidy, which has been in place for nearly 30 years, was cut off. Since then the subsidy payments to the rail carriers have stopped and the rail companies, CN and CP, have raised their rates correspondingly, not only to the compensatory rates which were the levels to which subsidization was provided under the at and east program, but in fact to the full commercial rates. In fact, the rail companies, in the absence of the at and east program, are charging what the traffic will bear.
We are seeing, quite predictably, that the traffic will not bear the higher rates. In Atlantic Canada the traffic has already begun to dry up. The main elevator in Saint John, which owed its existence to the at and east rates, has closed. Forty jobs at the grain elevator have gone as have another 70 person-years in the stevedoring and

April 30, 1990
Government Orders
railway sector, jobs which were supported by the existence of the grain terminal at Saint John.
The traffic through the elevator in Halifax has already been drastically reduced. Eighteen full-time layoffs have occurred in the elevator itself with 20 more part-time workers affected this summer. The reduction in work for stevedores and railway employees in Halifax, I am told, is in the order of the equivalent to 220 person-years. This has been the direct impact, already, of the cancellation of the at and east subsidy.
The Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission has estimated that the negative costs of the elimination of this program, even if the Halifax port does not close, will be in the order of $14 million. It is important to specify the nature of that impact. There will be a direct job and wage impact on the grain elevators themselves. There will be additional cost pressures placed on our livestock, poultry and wheat milling sectors. The farmers and livestock producers will ultimately have to pay more for their cost of production. They will have to pass these costs on.
Ports and railways charges will also be increased and there will be layoffs and a loss in wage cost there as well. If the Halifax grain elevator is obliged to close because of a lack of grain trade through that port, the costs will almost double and that again will eliminate the competition which keeps the rates to Atlantic livestock producers down. It will allow those rates to rise and it will also eliminate Halifax and Saint John from that vital category of Canadian exports. It will remove one more alternative for getting west coast grain to market, particularly in the winter when the St. Lawrence Seaway has frozen, and it will weaken the fragile economy of Atlantic Canada in particular.
These are some of the consequences which this government has blithely ignored in ramming through, without consideration and without consultation, this measure as a consequence of the disastrous 1989 leaked budget, a budget which, as we all know, imposed tax increases and cut-backs which affected the Atlantic Canadian economy in particular and which, no doubt, helped to precipitate the crisis that is already emerging in that part of the country today.
This measure, which is a statutory measure, has been introduced without even consulting Parliament, without even consulting those interests and bodies which are directly affected, such as the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission, which is in a position to provide helpful advice to the government. If it could not prevent the elimination of this program, it could at least make some alternative subsidy framework available which the government could have put in place to preserve the existence of the Atlantic ports in the grain and flour handling trade.
The Minister of State for Transport had some rather lame and unconvincing arguments when she spoke on this bill on February 12. She claimed, as has the government, that the at and east program was merely designed to compensate for the installation of rates in the United States which would have lowered rates from Buffalo through to the port of New York which, in her words, would encourage the movement of western Canadian grain between Buffalo, New York, and the port of New York during the winter freeze-up on the Great Lakes. She said that this was the reason this was put in place and that now that our costs of shipping grain through the Great Lakes by water have been reduced relative to that of rail, there is really no need for this program.
The minister and the government ignore one very important facet which underpinned the creation of this program, that was to ensure that Atlantic ports as well as Montreal and eastern Quebec ports had an opportunity to stay in this business. In fact, then transport minister Mr. Pickersgill, speaking before the Transportation and Communications Committee in 1966, said specifically that the purpose of the at and east program was to ensure that we will have rates that will provide some inducement and incentive to shippers to use the facilities of the Atlantic ports so that Halifax and Saint John will be able to stay competitive.
The government has ignored one crucial aspect which was involved in the setting up of this particular subsidy framework for transportation. It has chosen to ignore it in order to find a ready way to hack and cut some of the budget deficit which the government itself has created.
April 30, 1990

One of the important aspects which is emerging from consideration of a whole range of government initiatives since the last election has, of course, to do with the follow up to the implementation of the free trade agreement. It is not surprising to see this subsidy go the way of so many other supports for agricultural production and marketing and to see the link between the dismantling of our support framework for agriculture and the follow-through to the free trade agreement.
We have seen time and again that this government, whether with regard to western grain farmers, pork producers or other elements of the agricultural community, has been quite willing to surrender to the vigorous and aggressive subsidization of American and European agricultural exports. While the United States is in clear contravention of Article 7041 of the free trade agreement by providing export enhancement and export subsidy programs to its agricultural producers, we in Canada have been rolling over and playing dead. We have been unilaterally disarming our farmers in the face of increasing subsidized competition by the United States and the Europeans. We are left with absolutely no room to manoeuvre when it comes down to negotiating a framework of subsidies that is fair and equitable in the North American market or in the GATT negotiations on the world scale for agricultural commodities.
Instead, this government is reducing the competitiveness of our farmers who are producing for Canadian consumption and those who are producing for export.
You cannot help but view this particular subsidy cut-back in the broader context of this government's post free trade agenda. It goes even further than that. It is a dismantling, as we have said on this side of the House time and again, of the fabric and framework that has held this country together.
The Minister of State for Transport talks about how transportation must continue to play its role as we enter the new decade and the next century. She talks about creating a transportation system which is efficient, which takes account of the intermodal competition and which will meet the needs of moving our products into the next century.
However, she ignores the history of Canada. In the creation of our transportation network, in particular our rail transportation network, the imperatives of geography were defied. While recognizing the question of efficiency, it was realized that there was a far greater
Government Orders
objective, that being the objective of preserving the integrity of a country. The process of building that transportation network from east to west cross this country allowed for the west to be settled and built up and allowed the east to play a vital role in Confederation.
If it was not for the contribution by Sir John A. Macdonald and others at the birth of this country, we would not have a country. We all know that the simple expedient for developing a transportation network and for thereafter enabling that transportation network to do its job, to move goods and services to market and to consumers, would have been to set up trunk networks to move the goods straight down into the United States and take advantage of their much larger population and their already developed rail network.
We did not do that. We paid the price. We developed our own network parallel to that of the Americans and our forefathers realized how important it was to preserve that system. They realized how necessary it would be to continue to subsidize transportation east to west if we were not going to be absorbed through the natural north-south forces into the arms of the United States. That is an option that is always available to us and this government seems to be taking the easy way out and allowing this to occur.
That is the underpinning of the abandonment of this system. We on this side of the House recognize that from time to time we have to review the nature and design of our transportation subsidy programs to make sure that they continue to perform the role that was intended, that they do not prop up inefficient lines of production and inefficient means of transportation, but at the same time one does not simply hack the arms of the system apart without thinking, without forward planning, without examining the consequences to the users and to those consumers who are ultimately affected.
That is what this government has done with the elimination of the at and east program. That is what it has done with the cut-backs to VIA Rail. That is what it has done with the cut-backs in so many areas. The government has a hack and slash policy with no forethought. If we have to reverse the process and redesign the transportation systems and links that we have abandoned, it will cost us that much more because of the short-sightedness of this government and the shortsightedness of Bill C-26, an bill which attempts to

April 30, 1990
Government Orders
acquire our consent to a retroactive and short-sighted elimination of a Canadian program.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I rise first of all to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso), for his eloquent support of my motion in this particularly crucial matter to our region, the Atlantic region and in particular to my city of Halifax. As my hon. friend has mentioned, we have already seen the end of the grain elevator in Saint John, New Brunswick and we are witnessing the slow strangulation of the grain elevator operation in Halifax. This is an operation, I might add, that has a long tradition in our harbour city. With the concomitant loss of jobs, as my colleague has stated, this is yet another terrible blow to an already limping economy in Atlantic Canada.
I would like the member for Cape Breton Highlands- Canso to elaborate on his remarks about Canada in the post free trade era. A number of us in Atlantic Canada were less than enthusiastic about the free trade deal. I think perhaps that is why there are a number of us here on this side of the House. Where does he believe the cancellation of the at and east to fits into the scenario of a post free trade Canada.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Halifax, for her remarks and also for her question.
There is no question that the cancellation of at and east has to be understood in terms of the broad economic policy agenda of this government, if you can call it an agenda. What it is doing is putting the Atlantic economy even more at the mercy of the strong pull which has always existed toward the United States. One of the ironies of this particular bill is that the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission, in order to defend the interests of the livestock producers in Atlantic Canada in the face of the reduction in competition and the increase in costs which they will suffer as a result of this bill, have had to appeal to the government to withdraw a countervail on the importation of U.S. com into Atlantic Canada.
They are countervailing us on everything that moves, including our pork exports and other exports for which they are harassing us at the border. Many of our agricultural products, including potatoes from Prince Edward Island, western beef, and pork are being affected. They have made it impossible for Atlantic farmers to survive and have a cost framework which allows them to compete. We have imposed countervail duties on the Americans which only hurt the farmers from another part of the country, and we have had to go begging to let the U.S. com in. It is a telling example of how the Atlantic economy is being progressively shut off and isolated by this government. There is no question that this is part of the post free trade agenda.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I must say to my colleague from Cape Breton Highlands-Canso that I am a little disappointed that he would take such a regressive attitude toward a measure which was recommended by the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission some time ago for consideration by the government. Obviously it is a subsidy that is obsolete, based on a situation that existed some time ago. There is an obvious need for reform. I am sorry that he joins the member from Halifax who perhaps does not have sufficient background in some of these things to know some of the pertinent facts to realize that whatever else, the at and east is not accomplishing the goal which it was set out to accomplish.
Just to make sure that the member from Halifax especially knows what the at and east is all about, it was designed to allow east coast ports to compete with United States ports. They now can compete very favourably. The problem is with the competition from the St. Lawrence ports, from other Canadian ports. It is a matter entirely within Canada.
I am somewhat disappointed that the member does not recognize the facts of the situation, that the at and east is gone. It has been effectively terminated. There are no shipments now being made. Why would anybody stand in the House of Commons and move a six-month hoist? The at and east is already history. What members have to do is work positively toward some off-sets to accomplish the ends that need to be accomplished.
April 30, 1990

Etas the hon. member talked to the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission? Does he endorse their suggestion for off-sets to the elimination of the at and east rate? Perhaps we can move positively in this direction once this bill is passed. If we simply object to the passage of the bill then we are in suspense. We do not know what is going to happen. I would ask the hon. member to put his mind to the future so that we can resolve some of the problems, rather than continue to pour money into the Canadian National Railway.
Why do members opposite want to continue to pour money into the Canadian National Railway company when they have the opportunity to help the farmers, to help the grain elevator operators and a host of other people?


Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, first of all, for the hon. member's edification, I spoke with the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission this morning on this bill.
It is certainly not my understanding that they are supporting the elimination of the at and east program prior to their even being consulted about their proposal. They were complaining that they had made useful suggestions to the government, and they never even got an answer. They did not even get the courtesy of a substantive reply from the Minister of Agriculture and the Deputy Prime Minister.
The member suggests that we take a more positive attitude and that we go forward because this has been eliminated and we should accept it. I beg to differ. This bill is before the House of Commons. For the government to have the arrogance to eliminate a statutory subsidy before it is introduced in Parliament is a complete contempt of Parliament. There is just no way that we on this side of the House are going to abide by the kind of action that rides roughshod over the rights of all the members in this House.
If we were to apply that logic, perhaps we should concede to the passage of the goods and services tax, which 80 per cent of Canadians oppose vigorously and which we have opposed and will continue to oppose vigorously.


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche -Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to congratulate my colleague from Cape Breton-Highlands-Canso for an excellent speech.
Government Orders
Does he see in Bill C-26 an intent by the government to set up certain targets in its deficit reduction, particularly Atlantic Canadians? There seems to be a target set on the elderly, the unemployed, students, veterans, those who require child care, farmers and indeed, fishing people. Does he agree that these are the people who should be hit the hardest? Are these people able to manage some of those reduction measures?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Restigouche has asked quite a few questions, and you have a minute to try to rebut, or answer.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. Essentially, this bill targets the agricultural community in Atlantic Canada, which is going to be facing higher costs as a consequence of this measure and will have to pass those costs on or will be in even more difficulty vis-a-vis other parts of the country, than it already is. That is one community which is threatened. It also says that when it comes to moving grain for export or being involved in this activity, Atlantic Canadians do not have a role to play. It is pitting one part of the country against the other and, as is so often the case, it is Atlantic Canada that is coming up the loser.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. The hon. member for Regina-Lumsden. Before he begins his speech, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate him on his sixty-fifth birthday and, of course, his 23 years in Parliament.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and-do not start counting my time yet. I appreciate your remarks, Mr. Speaker, and the reaction of my colleagues. I know I do not look it, act it, or feel it, but I am. The only problem is that I have spent all my working life earning that old age pension which starts tomorrow, and the Minister of Finance is going to claw it back. However, that is another fight.
For over a century Canada has had a system of transportation assistance programs that took into account our geography, our distances, our climate and where our people who produced agricultural products were located. Hence, we had the statutory grain rates in western Canada, we had the bridge rates in northern Ontario, the Maritime Freight Assistance Act, Atlantic

April 30, 1990
Government Orders
Provinces Freight Assistance Act, and the at and east rates.
These rates were designed, to use the stupid phrase of the government about the free trade deal, to make a level playing field for agricultural producers in Canada. Australia and New Zealand producers have an average grain haul of about 200 miles to salt water. The European Economic Community has about 300 or 400 miles and a massive inland water system to move it all. This is similar to the United States that has a massive inland water system, including a canal that is over 100 miles long from Galveston, Texas, which is used to haul grain. So these transportation assistance programs were designed to allow Canadian producers to get their production into export position on a relatively equitable basis with competing countries. Since 1981 we have had nothing but a continuous erosion of those programs.
The value and relevancy of the at and east freight rates are as valid today as they were when they were first started. This is but another kick in the head for western grain producers and for the cities of Saint John and Halifax. Let me show you how, starting on April 1 of last year, for the next three fiscal years agricultural producers right across the country will pay $1,677 million more in increased costs because of cancelled assistance by the federal government and lost programs such as the at and east freight rates.
The branch line rehabilitation program has been wiped out. We have 2,000 miles of track out in the west that has to be fixed up and finished; there are commodity-based loans, such as the $7 million to the Canadian Dairy Commission. For crop insurance it was $90 million for last year and an additional $110 million for the current year that farmers are going to have to pay.
Western grain producers are going to have to pay an additional $27 million for interest rates on cash advances. The western grain stabilization producer levy increases about $91 million each year for those three years. Transfers to the system improvement railway reserve fund and the two-price wheat system, which by the way, did not cost the government a nickel, made the consumers of grain to produce cereals, bread and confections pay a higher price for grain consumed in Canada. It
did not cost the government anything and then what did the government do?
They cancelled the two-price system, which had meant $200 million a year to western grain producers in a good average crop year. Last year it was not nearly that because of the crop failure. It was not costing the government or the taxpayers anything. They said the milling and the baking industry was being hurt. That is baloney. They took off the higher price for domestically-consumed grain. Have the prices of confectioneries and bread gone down? They have like hell. That same baking, confectionery and milling industry that this was designed to help, supposedly, has kept its prices the same or higher and kept the money, instead of it going to grain producers.
I listen to the hon. member for Halifax get up with inane questions. He wouldn't know a bushel of wheat if it hit him in the face. I would also like to say-


Howard Edward Crosby: What do you know about pork?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What is in jeopardy, in the grain terminals in both Saint John and Halifax and Dover flour mills, will be several hundred jobs. There will be a further reduction in our capacity to export milling grain and flour. It has got to the point that with the loss of this program, the agricultural producers in the Atlantic provinces are now looking at and asking for the same kind of exemption as they get in British Columbia on bringing U.S. com in for feed. They are also looking at bringing in feed, oats, barley and wheat from western Europe. They can do it cheaper than paying the full cost of transportation from western Canada. That is a betrayal of the hon. member's own province and his own city.
When you see the spectacle of a country like ours which produces the best grain in the world forcing its livestock producers in Atlantic Canada to consider bringing in com from the U.S. and feed grain from western Europe, there is something terribly wrong. There is another point I want to make about the subsidies. The European Economic Community subsidizes their grain producers, for export out of the EEC, anywhere from $20 to $30 a tonne and the Americans, under their Export Enhancement Program, anywhere from $12 to $18 a tonne. At least the European Economic Community does it honestly. They do not take any tax revenue for the subsidies on grain out of the EEC. They have something like the goods and services tax. It is called the value added tax which is why consumer prices at wholesale and retail levels in Europe are much higher than
April 30, 1990

they are in Canada. That value added tax in the European community is what pays for the subsidies that the community allows on grain that they export. This is why they have been biting into the markets of the Canadian Wheat Board. The export enhancement program of the United States is a direct payment out of their tax revenue.
The government says it cannot compete with the treasury of the United States and the European Economic Community. We know that. We know that it cannot have programs anywhere near what those two groups have. But why does it expect individual grain producers, our flour mills, our grain handling facilities to compete with the treasuries of the European community and the United States?
The other thing that needs to be said about this legislation is that the government has enforced its effectiveness as of last July. In other words, they have implemented the legislation long before it was ever dealt with by this Parliament. That is an attack on and an insult to the institution of Parliament.
My colleague from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre raised a point of order. The Speaker ruled that he could not rule out what the government is doing on procedural grounds. He said it may well be that the hon. member from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre may have to use some other available institution, which means going to court. Neither he nor I have the money for that.
We are hoping that some people in Atlantic Canada will rear up on their hind legs-


Mary Catherine Clancy: We have been.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -on constitutional grounds alone, to see the spectacle of the government of the day enforcing a law that has not been dealt with by Parliament. What the hell is Parliament here for?


Mary Catherine Clancy: Exactly.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Are we going to just let the cabinet by Order in Council run the whole country and make all the laws? When the Liberal government tried this in 1981 with the repeal of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, they owed the Canadian Wheat board $96 million. We took them to Federal Court in Regina and they lost. We
Government Orders
won $96 million, plus interest, for our western grain producers because they made the damn bill retroactive for 18 months.
I do not understand why every member of Parliament from Atlantic Canada isn't up on his hind legs and raising hell about this.


Mary Catherine Clancy: We are. You haven't been paying attention, Les.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I said every member. All of them aren't. When you listen to what I call the inane question of the hon. member for Halifax-


Mary Catherine Clancy: Halifax West.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -Halifax West, you know, with friends like that who needs enemies.
The people in Saint John have told us that it looks like the grain terminal there will have to close. One of the reasons poultry and livestock producers in Atlantic Canada are looking at bringing in feed and grain from the U.S. and western Europe is because they need the terminals in Saint John and Halifax to store feed grain.


Howard Edward Crosby: Get serious. Saint John.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, we have heard from witnesses and the mail we have had tells us that they bring in a large bulk quantity, store it, and then haul it out by truck to farmers, livestock producers, and poultry producers. If you close down the grain terminal you reduce their capacity to be able to do that.
When you look at the total picture of the financial responsibilities of the government of Canada, the loss of payments for 1988 was $32 million and they still owed $3.3 million, so that is $35.5 million. That is no big deal in a budget of over $30 billion. What is more worrying is that while they might think they are saving that amount of money, the costs that have to be taken over by grain producers, livestock producers, the owners of the flour mill and the grain terminals in Halifax and Saint John, several hundred employees and those communities, will only take a very few short years to far exceed any so-called savings with the cancellation of this program.
There has been a continuing effort by governments which started in 1981. when I got a cabinet document in a plain brown envelope in which the then Liberal govern-

April 30, 1990
ment of the day outlined a long-term policy to get the national government out from under every transportation assistance program. Their main claim to infamy was the destruction of the statutory grain rates, and grain producers are going to get hit every year with higher freight costs because of that.
At a time when grain prices are going down and when we are having our most serious difficulties with the United States and the European Economic Community, surely is not a time to be making our grain producers pay more to reduce the capacity and effectiveness of our grain handling and flour milling systems to compete in a relative degree of equity with other countries.
If there is any one thing that I cannot understand, it is why this government, and previous ones, have continually resorted to attacking our primary producers for every nickel this federal government has sent out to western grain and agriculture producers across Canada. It has hit them with higher taxes, higher prices or higher costs that are in excess of any assistance sent by this government to agricultural producers.
I have already illustrated that over three years, the last fiscal year, this one and the next one, those increased costs and levies will amount to $1,677 billion on agricultural producers and their infrastructure which depends on them. That is not what you could call sound business practices. That is not what you could call treating the whole country fairly. It would be nice if we could produce all our grain in Atlantic Canada and British Columbia. We would not have to worry about the kinds of costs that we are faced with out west.
I do not know how many times I have had to get up in this Chamber and talk on this subject since 1968.1 do not know what one has to do to get the government members to reconsider and change their minds. If they would even do it once on some of these programs it would be a nice change. It would be refreshing.
All I can do on behalf of my party is appeal to the government to reconsider and withdraw this bill. If it insists on going through with it, will it do what is asked for as a compromise, a last resort, by people in Atlantic Canada to make sure that they do not have to pay any more freight rates than they do up as far as Montreal?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member's time has expired. He will have 10 minutes for his questions and comments, should we continue this debate after three o'clock.
It being two o'clock, the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, the women of Canada are still waiting for action from this government. The destruction of core funding for women's centres has been a cruel blow. Women who work to assist other women through these centres have lost all sense of security. They do not know whether their rent will be paid, whether their heat will be paid, or whether they will have light to do their work by. This government has abdicated its responsibility and left thousands of women without crucial services.
The Secretary of State has met with many of these groups, and so has the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, but weeks have passed and nothing has changed.
The lot of women in this country is not improving. In every area we see barriers, inequities and blatant discrimination.
Pious words do not create a climate of equality. So-called sympathy and understanding will not keep the doors of these centres open.
Core funding must be restored. Canadian women deserve these services, and the government has a duty to provide them. Fifty-two per cent of the population will not accept vague promises. They want action, and they want it now.


FISHERIES
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, the recent ruling by the free trade panel on the American legislation restricting the import of what the Americans consider to be undersized lobsters potentially undermines the credibility of the redress process of the FTA itself.
April 30, 1990

I commend the American government and the fishing industry for their discovery of the need for conservationist measures in the lobster industry. Indeed, changing the carapace to the higher standard makes sense for the Canadian industry as well. Indeed, it is a measure supported by many Canadian fishermen.
However, few Maritimers interested in the lobster industry see the American action as anything but what it is, namely, a trade distorting action impacting at a time when there is an over-supply of lobsters on both sides of the border, and when lobster prices have dropped to record lows.
On the basis of recent history, the U.S. is hardly in a position to provide lessons in conservation to the Canadian fishing industry.
I urge the government to respond to the interim panel ruling by indicating that it is simply unacceptable.


SOVIET JEWRY
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this House to raise an issue of international importance. Pursuant to a meeting I had with the Emergency Action Committee for Soviet Jewry, I am extremely concerned about the issues that were raised relating to the state of Jews in the Soviet Union.
Their concerns were consistent with the well-documented cover story of the April 16, 1990, edition of Maclean's magazine. According to the report, anti-Semitism is on the rise in the Soviet Union.
The increased and repeated vandalism of Jewish businesses, synagogues and cemeteries in Moscow and Leningrad, widespread rumours of a pogrom-an organized massacre of Jews, allegedly planned for Moscow and Leningrad on May 5,1990, is of grave concern to me, to the Jewish community and, I am sure, to all Canadians.
I urge this government to exercise international leadership on this issue in order to protect the lives of Jews residing in the Soviet Union.


BILL C-21
Mr.   Maurice@: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to rise in the House and ask my colleagues in the other place to pass Bill C-21 without further delay.
When will the Senate release the funds that will give all Canadians a chance at better training and better jobs?
The Labour Force Development Strategy announced by our government a year ago will make it possible for over 60,000 welfare recipients to stand on their own two feet and get jobs, thanks to training. By its actions, the Senate is showing its complete indifference to what happens to these people. The strategy will help communities plagued by serious economic problems to make a fresh start, diversify their economies and train their residents. The Senate has decided to ignore them as well.
Nearly $100 million will be earmarked for training for older workers who also want to contribute to our economy. We must not rob them of this opportunity. Young people who have dropped out of high school or have trouble staying on the labour market will have access to basic training programs. Does the Senate want to ignore them as well? How long will it take the Senate to show it supports Canada's workers?


NORTHERN BENEFITS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley
Valley): Mr. Speaker, on October 27, the task force report on the northern and remote tax allowance was released. Northerners and people involved rejected the recommendations of that task force.
In replies to petitions and questions on the Order Paper, the Minister of Finance said he would decide quickly on the allowance.
Northerners hope the minister's delay means he is rejecting the task force report and developing a new community-by-community approach.
In any case, according to departmental officials, there is no timetable for a decision. My colleagues in the New
[Stage Direction]
April 30, 1990
Democrats' northern caucus call on the minister to act now to bring in a fair and positive decision on the northern tax.

Guy H. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, as the Conservative government closes down rural post offices, allegedly to reduce the deficit, this will have a very serious impact on rural communities across Canada. These post offices provide a reliable service and invaluable employment opportunities. They are often the only federal presence in a small community.
Last week, in a committee report on mail delivery, the government proposed either closing or privatizing all rural postal offices in Canada.

The result of this ill-conceived measure would be the laying off of 10,000 people-80 per cent of whom are women. This would represent the largest lay off of women in Canadian history.
The Liberal party firmly believes that postal service is an essential public service which must be equitably provided to both urban and rural residents. We also believe that it is in the public interest to put the highest priority on providing quality service ahead of any government deficit reduction strategy.
The federal government must reconsider its plans to privatize and close rural post offices in order to ensure the continued existence of this important link between the federal government and rural communities.


REMARKS MADE IN HALIFAX BY THE MEMBER FOR YORK SOUTH-WESTON
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, a number of my constituents, all residents of Abitibi, have asked me to speak in the House with respect to what was said recently in Halifax by the Liberal Member for York South-Weston.
In May 1980, a referendum was held in Quebec. Today we all know that in our Quebec caucus, some federal members voted no and others voted yes.


An hon. member:: That's true.


Guy St-Julien: The same applies to the Liberal government in Quebec, where some members and ministers voted yes, others no.


An hon. member:: Exactly.


Guy St-Julien: Like the Liberal member from Toronto, I would like to refer to the dictionary, in this case le Petit Robert, in which 27 words separate "depraver" from "depute", and I would like to say to the hon. member that he "depraves" both the Quebec National Assembly and the Parliament of Canada.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Mr. Speaker, as a proud Canadian I rise in the House of Commons this afternoon to support the Meech Lake Constitutional Accord process.
Three years ago the Prime Minister and the provincial premiers agreed to an accord to chart the future of Canada.
The Premier of Alberta, the Hon. Don Getty, demonstrated leadership and statesmanship in helping to draft the agreement, and has been a strong supporter of the accord.
The people of Alberta, and the constituents of St. Albert riding, want a united Canada, a stable Canada that will ensure economic growth, employment and prosperity for Canadians.
Albertans believe in Canada-a united Canada. Canada has tremendous resources, the greatest of which is our people-talented, skilled and industrious.
As Canadians let us not dwell on our differences, but rather highlight what we have in common. Let us replace confrontations with consideration, tolerance and understanding.
The recommendations of the Meech Lake committee will be vital to the future of our country. Canadians working together will find a solution-a united Canada.
April 30,1990


SAULT STE. MARIE LOCK
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian lock at Sault, Canada, has been down for over two years. The total cost of rehabilitation or restoration could be $7 million to $35 million.
The Canadian government says: "We will give you $5 million, privatize the lock and the City of Sault Ste. Marie should take full responsibility for the future operation of the lock". We cannot disregard this option entirely, but I want to point out that in an official letter from the American State Department it is stated:
Under such an occurrence, we believe that the U.S.A. and Canada
should jointly consider remedial actions, including a sharing of the
costs for the continuation of navigation at Sault Ste. Marie.
If this were implemented, a new super lock in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, will cost $260 million. Our share at 30 per cent of the traffic would be $75 million. Canadian tax dollars would go to operating an American lock.
I ask the Minister of the Environment, the minister responsible for the Canadian lock, to approach, as I will, the Secretary of State for External Affairs to reconsider the Canadian position on this vital, nationalistic issue.
We require more dollars to ensure the operation of a Canadian lock, not an American lock.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, the problem with inflation continues to be one of the fundamental challenges to our future economic growth and well-being. It must be reduced for us to have sustainable lower interest rates, higher productivity and the elimination of distortions caused by price instability.
One piece of the puzzle which I strongly feel needs more investigation is the question of price points. While we continue to control spending and pursue a tight monetary policy, one must ask why, in the wake of the competitive environment created by the free trade
agreement, we have not seen more downward movement on prices.
This absence is already having a profound impact on our border communities, such as Sarnia-Lambton.
The answer to this question could not only help stabilize prices, but also lower consumer prices. Coupled with spending restraint this could help reduce the burden on monetary policy of fighting inflation through higher interest rates.
It is my hope that price points will be one area to which the government will be attributing more attention in its pursuit of non-inflationary economic growth for this country.


GEORGE PRICE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, today is the last day that George Price will serve as the agriculture and natural resources reporter for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on Parliament Hill.
He has served in this post for 23 years, and previously for eight years with the corporation. He started in private radio reporting on agriculture in Saskatchewan in the mid-1940s and has completed some 43 years of agriculture reporting-a splendid achievement for any career.
Today, I want to pay tribute to the contribution of George Price to agriculture over the years. He has reported on this turbulent industry in a balanced and fair way. His reports span the breadth and scope of agriculture and resource industries all across Canada. His efforts are applauded by farm groups and individual farmers from sea to sea. It is a pity that the CBC did not show its appreciation for his loyal service by retaining this position rather than by cancelling it in such an insensitive way.
The members of this House, I am sure, join me in extending our appreciation to him and wish him well in his retirement years.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


OLDER WORKERS
Mr. John E. Cole (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in a recent article in The Toronto Star journalist Carol Goar

April 30, 1990
rightly drew attention to the special barriers facing older workers who have lost jobs or whose jobs are radically changing.
Older workers, perhaps more than any others, can find themselves facing insurmountable difficulties in adjusting to technological and other change, and many are in need of more government assistance.
The federal government's Labour Force Development Strategy is one measure that can help older workers, and provides in the order of $100 million for new training and adjustment programs tailored to their needs.
I urge all hon. members to fight for that assistance and to help convince the other place that Canada's older workers need the new programs that depend on passage of Bill C-21.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, today is the last day for about 18 million Canadians to file their income tax returns for last year. After agonizing over their tax returns, most of them are wondering why their taxes have increased while the richest 1 per cent of Canadians had a tax cut averaging $3,570.
While hundreds of thousands line up at food banks every week, they are wondering why the government allows certain Canadians to deduct the cost of their martini and caviar lunches.
While low and middle income families struggle with their mortgage payments to stay out of homelessness, they are wondering why the government continues to allow billions in capital gains to go untaxed.
The 18 million taxpayers are wondering why businesses can deduct the expense of having accountants calculate their tax while ordinary Canadians cannot. They also wonder why thousands of profitable corporations still do not pay any income tax year after year.
Canadians are wondering why this government is bankrupting the nation with its high interest rate policies which cannot but lead to high income taxes in the future.
The answer is clear. This government is itself bankrupt of any ideas for running our economy, save one-give to the privileged and make the poor pay.


CANADA POST
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations is recommending that Canada Post be sold to the private sector. Privatizing Canada Post is the last thing that this government should be thinking of, unless of course it wants to continue to alienate the regions of this country.
In my riding, more and more post offices are being closed in favour of contracting out services to retail outlets. Constituents living in rural communities view the post office as part of the Canadian identity. If Canada Post is sold, that identity will be lost.
My constituents do not agree with the recommendations of the committee. In fact, over the weekend, I was told repeatedly that they support the recommendations of the Liberal minority report. They told me to tell the government to leave Canada Post alone.
Canadians want to keep their rural post offices. They want door-to-door delivery in all areas within an urban community, and they want to continue to identify the post office as a symbol of being Canadian.
It is clear that the Conservative government continues to make decisions which are not reflective of the aspirations of Canadians living in the regions. It is clear that this government's days are numbered.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, there were more dark days for the residents of Timis-kaming last week-more dark days for resource-based regions and rural Canadians.
After three years of hard lobbying the environmentalists have finally succeeded in closing down Temagami's sawmill.
With the closure announcement 80 employees have had their livelihoods stripped from them, and over 100 families are directly affected and the communities of Temagami and Latchford have been delivered another fatal blow.
April 30, 1990

I cannot relate to you, Mr. Speaker, the hurt that has been felt by the residents of the area. Those people who want to hug trees, dip a paddle and take pictures of birds have won the battle. They are not having to take the opportunity to learn about the problems that they have left to us-rents and property values, careers and livelihoods, future opportunities for our children.
It is about time urbanites who want to control the rural parts of our country take responsibility for the socio-economic destruction that they are causing.
They want us to board up our windows and move to the cities. They want us to stop living off the land and start living off UI and welfare lines. That is exactly what they are doing to us today.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, as a volunteer for my campaign, the Minister of Finance, just suggested I should say the bland is strong. I should perhaps ask the press to treat all my questions as being off the record.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. On Friday in his answer to my questions about the recent dramatic growth in bankruptcies, he said:
It is not unusual at this stage of economic development in the business cycle for the level of business bankruptcies to increase.
I would like to ask the minister just what stage in the business cycle he is talking about. Is he finally admitting that his disastrous mix of economic policies is pushing this country into the next stage of the business cycle, a full-blown recession?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, without breaking the confidences of last Saturday night I would like to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition in the kick-off to his campaign, but I would caution him not to get overly excited after one good speech. He has a long way to go until June 22.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has made reference to the remarks that I made last Friday in response to his question. What I was pointing out was that Canadian business bankruptcies at their peak in 1982 were 1.28 per cent of the total number of business establishments in the country. In 1988-89, that level of bankruptcy incidence is down less than half of that to .59 per cent in both 1988 and 1989.
I am just pointing out the fact that as an economy has to slow down, which is the normal course of business cycles, one would expect that that .59 would increase somewhat, but certainly not to the extraordinary levels that were achieved in 1982 under the government of which he was a member.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, today Statistics Canada, the government's own statistical agency, released figures showing that the Canadian economy shrank for two successive months this year, in both January and February. That is before taking into account the negative effects on the economy of the most recent increases in interest rates.
If the minister says his policies are not pushing this country into a recession, why have we had two successive months of a weakening economy? How many more months of economic decline, of lost jobs and closed businesses will it take before the minister drops his high interest rate blueprint for a government-made recession? Surely what has happened so far should be enough for him.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that during those same two months of January and February we had a total job creation of 64,000 people.


Mr. Crawford:: Where?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The hon. member back there asks where. In Canada, right across this country we have seen 64,000 jobs created.
The only point that I am making is that I acknowledged in my last budget that we expected to have a slowdown in the economy this year. We expected that in the first half of this year. So there are no surprises here.
Going back to my remarks on Friday, when an economy has been operating as quickly as it has over the course

April 30, 1990
Oral Questions
of the last four or five years, one does expect that there will be some slowdown, and that is being reflected in the statistics that we have seen today.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance just admitted that the present slowdown in the economy was in fact created by this government's economic policies.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, today Statistics Canada tells us that the Gross Domestic Product went down, at this stage in the economic cycle, during January and February. It says the manufacturing sector is already experiencing a recession and that housing starts in the construction industry are down. Why won't the minister admit that, at this stage in the economic cycle, the time has come to reduce interest rates before the whole economy is in a recession?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, again I caution the Leader of the Opposition from zeroing in on one or other of the specific economic indicators. It is important to look at the total picture in the economy, and we are still seeing signs of inflationary pressures today.
I also point out to my friend what I said on a number of occasions last week in the House. When a government is looking at the development of economic policy, alternatives have to be considered. The alternatives that we have had to consider in previous times, such as was considered by the government of the day in the 1970's, underestimated the importance of inflation.
We are not going to fall into that same trap again this time. If we do so, we risk going back into the same trap that we saw in 1981-82 when inflation hit 13 per cent, and when the level of interest rates was in excess of 20 per cent. That clearly led to the disastrous recession of the 1981-82 period.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the Mohawk community of Akwesasne.
As the minister will know, living conditions on Akwesasne have become so dangerous and so bad that last Friday and Saturday several hundred residents of the village of St. Regis in Akwesasne had to be evacuated by barge across the St. Lawrence River to Cornwall, Ontario.
Can the minister tell this House if he has had any success in convincing the American authorities to take the necessary actions to disarm the so-called warrior society operating on the U.S. side of the border?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I not only thank the hon. member for his question but I thank him for the very constructive way in which he has approached a crisis situation affecting constituents of his. It is as well of concern to all members of the House.
I have been in touch with the Secretary of State of the United States, Mr. Baker. I have told him that we have a situation that we regard as being one of near anarchy, that in our view the great majority of the source of the problem is on the American side, and have asked him to urge response by American authorities, including, particularly, authorities of the Government of New York.
I have not yet received a reply from Mr. Baker, although I understand that one is in the mail. I have some confidence that the Americans will treat this matter with the seriousness that we do.
I can report to the member that there is occurring today a meeting of police authorities from both sides of the border, all the relevant agencies, to ensure that there is a co-ordinated police approach to the crisis to which he refers.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his response.
As the minister will know, over the weekend the Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Chief George Erasmus, has formally requested that the U.S. National Guard be called in to restore law and order on the U.S.
side.
Given that statement, I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he has personally contacted, or if he will, contact Governor Mario Cuomo of New York and impress upon him the urgency of this issue?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, officials of my department through the Consulate General in New York have been
April 30, 1990

in touch with Governor Cuomo's office to demonstrate precisely the concern that we express.
I obviously cannot comment on Mr. Erasmus' statement, except to say that it underlines the concern held by individual Canadians and by governments here about the situation.
Our determination is to play our role in bringing it to a peaceful resolution. Our expectation is that the Americans, both on a state and a national level, will also play an effective role to resolve this situation as quickly and as peacefully as possible.


THE ECONOMY
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Labour is quoted over the weekend as having said: Canadians are really much better off. They take vacations. Restaurants are full on the weekends, and they drive cars. The facts indicate something quite different.
Today, Statistics Canada reports that the Gross Domestic Product has declined for the second straight month. Bankruptcies were worse last month than they were in the worst month in 1982, during a recession.
Will the Minister of Finance and his government finally pay attention to the real economic indicators: lower the interest rates and scrap the GST?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think I have made it very clear in answers to the Leader of the New Democratic Party and the House last week why we are following the policies that we are following. It is very easy for members opposite to make these comments here. On this side of the House we have to deal with the issues. We have to deal with the policy prescription.
If I might draw her attention to an article by Norman Webster recently, the former NDP Leader of Saskatchewan, Allan Blakeney, is quoted as having said: "I have written to Audrey McLaughlin asking her how she proposes to deal with the deficit, and she has not replied".
Oral Questions
We have to reply. That is the job that we have as government. We do not have the luxury that the hon. member for Yukon has of ignoring these problems. We are not going to ignore the problems. We are going to deal with them, as we have dealt with them in recent years. The results are better economic performance, one of the best in the world today.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Finance does not wish to take my opinion, I would like to point out to him the opinion of the Canadian Real Estate Association which says that the minister should curtail the interest rates before he brings the country down.
A Wood Gundy senior economist says that the interest rates are driving the economy into a serious recession.
The Canadian Exporters Association says that the current monetary policy is one-minded, amounts to overkill and is proving disastrous for Canadian exports.
I ask the minister again: When will the government respond to the mounting evidence that this interest rate policy is increasing, not decreasing inflation?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is saying that our interest rate policy is increasing inflation, then she sadly misunderstands the role of interest rates and the role of central bank policy in dealing with inflation through the means of keeping interest rates high.
I draw to her attention that during the course of last year there was a very substantial increase in bank credit ranging from the 10 to 12 per cent range for businesses to the 15 to 20 per cent range for mortgages.
When the economy is growing at 7 per cent, if we were to decrease interest rates, that increase in bank credit would be much more substantial than it was. That would lead clearly to more inflation, clearly to the problems that we are trying to avoid, the similar type of problems that led to the recession of 1981-82. That is the policy of the government. We have to deal with these pressures today and we are determined to do so.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I have a supplementary question for the minister, Mr. Speaker.

April 30, 1990
Oral Questions
Figures released this morning show that the cost of living is rising faster than wages. When he tabled his budget, the minister of Finance had said that wages must remain stable to fight inflation.
How can the minister justify maintaining this policy? It isn't working!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I am not
quite sure that I follow the question the Leader of the New Democratic Party has posed.


Mr. Simmons:: You are not alone.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Liberal members agree with me. They do not understand the question either. Maybe she would like to rephrase it.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, when he tabled his budget, the minister of Finance had said that wages must remain stable to fight inflation.
How can the minister justify maintaining this wage control policy? Because, of course, when the cost of living increases, wages must also increase.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think my puzzlement came from the fact that wages and salaries have been increasing quite significantly in recent months. We have also seen an increase in unit labour costs which last year averaged 6.3 per cent during the course of the year, but throughout the year increased every quarter, ending at 6.9 per cent. This is one of a range of inflationary pressures that we are looking at. We do not look at just one indicator. We look at the range of pressures that are in the economy. Once we see those pressures subsiding, then we will be able to get interest rates down.
I have made that statement very clearly over the last few months. Until we see the pressures subsiding, it would be wrong for us to move too soon.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. This past Friday, the Finance Minister of Nova Scotia, in tabling his budget, announced a number of regressive tax increases which he said were necessary because of the loss of over $61 million in federal transfers.
Will the minister now finally admit that his number one plan for dealing with his government's own fiscal mismanagement is to simply transfer the federal deficit on to the backs of the poorest provinces of this Confederation?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My friend from Dartmouth is saying that for the $61 million change in the transfers to the provinces, the province of Nova Scotia had to increase taxes $150 million, so clearly there is an inconsistency in the figures.
However, I want to point out to my friend that we have a national problem; it is called the deficit. We have had to ask the provinces to participate in solving this problem and that is what the budget in part did.
While we have reduced the growth in transfers to the provinces, the growth for the province of Nova Scotia will be 3.9 per cent this year and 4.3 per cent next year. The program spending of the Government of Canada, that is on everything but interest costs for this current year, is an increase of 3 per cent. So we are not asking the province of Nova Scotia to do anything more than we are prepared to do ourselves.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister. Two weeks ago it was RE.I. that got nailed for $13.5 million and last Friday Nova Scotians were asked to swallow $61 million.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance the same question that I asked the Prime Minister two weeks ago. What actions are his government prepared to take to offset this very serious loss of revenue to the coffers of the poorest provinces of this Confederation, especially at the very time when his own high interest rate, high dollar policies are pushing Atlantic Canada over the brink of recession?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if my friend will look at the range of measures as to how we have been treating the provinces, I think he will see that we have done so in a fair way. I indicated that the province of Nova Scotia transfer increased 3.9 per cent in this current year. For the province of Ontario, it is 2.25 per cent, for the provinces of Alberta and B.C., it is about 2.5 per cent. We are treating the provinces in an equitable way, recognizing the financial strength that they do have.
I also say to the hon. member that the federal government is spending 35 cents out of every revenue dollar on its interest costs. For the province of Nova
April 30, 1990

Scotia, I think something like 16 or 18 cents of every revenue dollar is spent on interest costs. That is one reason why we felt it is important that the provinces share in the solution to dealing with the national deficit, and that is the presentation that we made in this last budget.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Bankruptcies in Ontario and Quebec increased 29 per cent over the first quarter of last year. In Atlantic Canada in the first three months of this year, the increase is 60 per cent over the same period last year. Atlantic Canadians are paying the price in spades for the government's high interest rate policy and the government's insensitivity.
What is it going to take to make this government stop its ruthless assault on the lives and businesses of Atlantic Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes it sound as if we are deliberately going out to cause businesses to go bankrupt. That is not true. There is no sense in that being left in the minds of Canadians.
I do not take any pleasure in seeing companies go bankrupt. I do not take pleasure in seeing an individual go bankrupt. But I do know that if we do not follow the policies that we are following and ensure that we get this inflation problem under control, the number of bankruptcies will be considerably higher in future years.
If we let inflation go out of control, we will get right back to where we were in 1982. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the figures that I used with the Leader of the Opposition. Bankruptcies then were 1.28 per cent of total businesses. In the last two years, they have been .59 per cent, about half as high.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Minister of Finance that Atlantic Canadians do not enjoy seeing their economy disintegrate.
What is the Minister of Finance going to do to help Atlantic Canadians who are now enduring the pain of bankruptcies? Is he going to tell them to get a job in the fishery, to look at the classifieds in the Micmac News, or take a train to central Canada?
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member understands that we have to have a national monetary policy. We cannot have a monetary policy that is different in Nova Scotia than Ontario, and different in Ontario than it is in British Columbia.
What we have done and continue to do is provide offsets through fiscal policy by having agencies such as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency in place, or a major project such as Hibernia. These are things that are offsets, if you will, to the effects of these policies, plus the fact that equalization provides an ongoing measure of support for provinces in Atlantic Canada to allow them to continue to meet their responsibilities in the range of government policy there.
I remind my hon. friend that there are no strings attached to the equalization payments. Those moneys can be spent in any way that the province wishes to spend them.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to members' attention the presence in the gallery of His Excellency George Vassi-liou, President of the Republic of Cyprus.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: And also, colleagues, I am pleased to draw the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Henri Nallet, Minister of Agriculture of France.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to draw to the members' attention the presence in the gallery of Kazimiera Prunskiene, Prime Minister of Lithuania.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


BANKRUPTCY
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, I have a question for the Minister of State.

April 30, 1990
Oral Questions
The minister will know that the bankruptcy of Odyssey International and Thompson Vacations has stranded thousands of Canadians in the Caribbean and southern U.S. The minister will also know that a loophole in the National Transportation Act allows charter companies created like Odyssey to operate without financial guarantees.
Will the minister tell the House that he will move as soon as possible to plug that loophole, so that Canadians can be protected when they are travelling abroad.


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Labour) and (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for this question. It allows me to reassure tourists that the tour operators emergency stand-by group, a committee of the Canadian Association of Tour Operators is working diligently to bring home those passengers who were affected by this bankruptcy.
I would also like to remind passengers who find themselves in a situation like this, first to make contact with their travel agencies and our embassy offices, who have been requested to provide any necessary consular assistance to affected passengers.
I am informed that all passengers are on the way home.
I would also like to inform the hon. member that this is not a loophole in the law. It is an exemption that was granted to charters operated by carriers that have a scheduled licence because they were considered to have the financial capabilities. The National Transportation Agency has been reviewing its regulations, with a view to determining whether to revoke the exemption and require all charters to be protected by advance payments. We expect their decision to be reached within the next few weeks.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of State. I remind the minister that that exemption was designed at a time when the airline industry was extremely stable and was not designed for a deregulated period which allows for all sorts of new companies to pop up overnight to serve scheduled situations.
Given the possibility that the provincial travel industry funds, either in Ontario, B.C., or elsewhere where they exist, will not be sufficient to totally compensate those
passengers who have suffered a financial loss because of this bankruptcy, and given the fact that it is a federal exemption that has allowed this situation to occur, will the government give consideration to assisting those travel funds in meeting 100 per cent of the draw created by this bankruptcy?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the hon. member by saying that deregulation has in fact created an environment in which airline companies are competing in the best interests of the Canadian public.
As far as all his doom and gloom possibilities are concerned, I would like to tell him that as a responsible government, we will cross the bridge when we get to the river.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Transport along the same line of questioning. I have been discussing this situation with people in the business. Organizations representing travel agents and tour operators informed the government months ago of a serious problem in Transport Canada regulations pertaining to chartered airlines, a problem which is directly related to the stranding of 7,000 Canadians this past weekend.
Considering there were four bankruptcies in past months-they were bonded, I agree-can the minister explain why he did not take action when he was told about the problem months ago and we saw what happened this past weekend?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member has stated that in most of the cases that happened recently the tour operators were in fact bonded as required by the regulations.
As far as looking at the whole situation, I have just told the previous member that the National Transportation Agency has been reviewing the regulations, with a view to examining the possibility and the necessity of requiring all charters to be protected and their decision is expected within the next few weeks.


Mark Joseph Assad: I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I accept the minister's answer, but he was notified.

April 30, 1990

In any event, I would like to ask the Minister of External Affairs, since so many Canadians are stranded throughout the world, whether senior officials of his department in the countries where we are represented are prepared to help Canadians who are very anxious, to say the least.
Is your department ready to give them information to reassure them that they can return home?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the hon. member again that yes, all embassies and consular offices have been instructed to do what is necessary so that all passengers with any problems when they travel abroad can contact them.
I just said that the first thing people must do is to contact their travel agent and as soon as we were informed of the possibility of this problem arising under the present legislation, the National Transportation Agency was instructed to review the present legislation. That is what they are doing.
Again I say to the hon. member that the National Transportation Agency's decision should come in the next few weeks.


FISHERIES
Roger Simmons: I have a question for my friend, the Minister of Fisheries, whose torrid honeymoon in the ministry is clearly over.
I want to draw to his attention something that he ought to know, that confidence in the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada is clearly and completely destroyed because of the lack of support from this government. Now there are rampant reports in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia that one of the giants in the business, National Sea, is looking at selling off some of its plants in those two provinces.
Is the minister aware of that? In the event that National Sea does sell off some of its plants in Newfoundland and/or Nova Scotia, is the minister prepared to ensure there will be a supply of fish to communities
Oral Questions
such as Burgeo by, if necessary, revoking the trawler licences of that company?


Mr. Speaker:: I must point out to the hon. member that that is a highly hypothetical question. The minister may want to deal with it.
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans): Mr. Speaker, I guess you have my answer. This is a hypothetical question.
The point I want to make to the hon. member is that I have seen press releases about the possible attempt by some people to purchase the Canso and Burgeo plants from National Sea. All I can say at this moment is that we have been working with the communities, as the member knows, to find a way to give the people in Canso a way of earning their living.
We have never promised that we would be able to create jobs out of nothing, but I know that certainly discussions are taking place right now, and if and when something can be done in a positive way for Canso or Burgeo or any other place in Atlantic Canada, I will be pleased to let the House know.


Roger Simmons: The minister will also know that the latest blow to the Atlantic fishery is the glut in the lobster fishery. Today you can buy lobster for less a pound than you can buy bologna, our traditional steak back home. In view of the continuing onslaught on the fishermen and plant workers in Atlantic Canada, can the minister tell the House when is he going to realize that he cannot afford to wait any longer before announcing his long-awaited aid package. They are hurting and they are hurting even more because of the lobster situation. Will he act now?
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans): Mr. Speaker, someone suggested that I say to the hon. member that he is an expert in baloney. I would not say that to him, although he may very well be.
I want to take the occasion to warn the hon. member that Atlantic Canadians, especially fishermen, are not asking for aid.


Roger Simmons: They want to fish.


Mr. Valcourt:: They do not want a hand-out. They want a hand up, and we will give it to them.

April 30, 1990
Oral Questions NICARAGUA


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State for External Affairs. Three years ago I raised in this House of Commons actually four times, the question of arms sales by Canadian companies to the Nicaragua contras.
Yesterday The Toronto Star reports that arms dealer Arif Durrani has seen the shipments first-hand, and is testifying that documents were falsified.
In light of the new, direct evidence of illegal activity of Canadian companies, will the minister make public the RCMP report, which I do not believe has ever been made public, and can we expect charges against these companies in Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct. He raised the matter four times and I think that on each occasion I gave him the assurance that the Canadian government was not involved in and had no knowledge of a transaction to supply arms.
He quotes Mr. Arif Durrani. He does not give his full credential. He is a convicted arms dealer in prison in Oregon. He is the source of the latest round of concerns that have been expressed in The Toronto Star.
The hon. member knows as well as anyone in the House that there is a practical rule against releasing RCMP reports. I trust him and I take him as a man of his word. If he is prepared to accept the normal confidentialities that would apply, I will be sure that there is a complete briefing given to him on a confidential basis as to the circumstances. Then he can base his questions on the facts, not on allegations that come from persons occupying cells in Oregon.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I did
neglect to mention that. That is a very good source though, and the minister should consider that.
I say to the minister that I will not take up his offer. He should make the report public to the Canadian people, as they have done in the United States with respect to the Iranian-contra affair.
My supplementary question is to the Prime Minister. Either the Canadian government in this matter was ignorant of what was going on, were wilfully blind or, in fact, knew what was going on.
Given that this happened in a period when he was very close to the American President, Mr. Reagan, and to the White House, was he ever asked by President Reagan, Mr. Poindexter, or any other officials in the White House at that time, and did he agree, to secretly ship arms to the Nicaraguan contras through Canada?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, but they did tell me to keep my eye out for subversive socialists in Canada.


LABOUR FORCE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As part of our unemployment insurance reform and our Labour Force Development Strategy, we plan to spend several million dollars on helping older workers and supporting the development of communities hit by high unemployment rates. For instance, $100 million was earmarked for the Program for Older Worker Adjustment and $50 million for the Community Futures Program.
Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting four months for the Senate to act, and meanwhile the unemployed, workers and disadvantaged regions are being penalized. Does the minister have any indication whether the Senate will finally come to its senses and stop using the unemployed and the regions for its own political ends?


An hon. member:: Good question.


An hon. member:: Very good question.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we, as a government, are aware of the problems of the unemployed and more specifically of unemployed older workers, and we have the solutions to these problems in our Labour Force Development Strategy. For the sake of all older workers and others who are unemployed, I sincerely hope the Senate will decide to support a bill that is of vital importance to all Canadian workers.
April 30, 1990


LITHUANIA
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Secretary of State for External Affairs met this morning with our distinguished guest, the Prime Minister of Lithuania.
Does that meeting indicate that Canada will be playing a role in helping to ease the tensions in the struggling country of Lithuania?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I did have the opportunity this morning, as a parliamentarian meeting another parliamentarian, to have some discussions with the Prime Minister of Lithuania.
We identified a number of areas in which Canadian help to the elected leaders of Lithuania can proceed, ranging all the way from advice on establishing banking systems and government departments, through to the provision of training in Canadian business schools and the discussion of trade with members of the trade delegation accompanying the Prime Minister.
Of particular interest to me was the response by the Prime Minister of Lithuania to the proposal made on the weekend by President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl. The response was a constructive and positive one, indicating that they would, of course, require some international guarantees. I indicated to the Prime Minister that Canada would look for ways in which we could contribute to international guarantees that might allow the independence of Lithuania to be achieved by negotiation and peacefully.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister for External Affairs and it also concerns Lithuania.
Did the minister have an opportunity in his discussions this morning with the Prime Minister to indicate Canada's recognition of this as being an international problem and not just a national problem for Moscow, and our willingness to indicate to Moscow our support for a peaceful settlement and the eventual independence of Lithuania?
Oral Questions
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, that position was communicated some time ago, not least by a unanimous resolution of this House of Commons.
I think that the practical problem being faced now is how one achieves that result in a way that encourages and maintains in control in the Soviet Union the forces of reform which all of us applaud.
There was a very important initiative taken by President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl. There has been a constructive response by the Lithuanians to that initiative. There is a requirement from the point of view of the Lithuanians of some kind of international guarantees. There are a couple of ways in which Canada can work on that. One is to consult with some of our allies, which we will do, beginning in the next few days. Another would be to respond positively to the request of the Prime Minister of Lithuania this morning that there might be some Canadian expertise in international law that could be made available to Lithuanians. We are prepared to look at that.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister.
I am sure all Canadians appreciate the initiatives being taken here, but I would like to pursue one specific one. Given Canada's commitment to international organizations, does the minister see a role for the United Nations, particularly the Security Council, and the presence of international organizations during these very, very insecure times for Lithuanians?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that matter was discussed with the Prime Minister of Lithuania this morning. I conveyed to her my view that it would be premature to involve the United Nations or the Security Council at this stage because that might have the effect of hardening attitudes on all sides. I thought the informal but highly effective approach that had been initiated by President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl should be followed up with a similarly informal but effective attempt by nations in the west to provide the kind of international guarantees, quite reasonable guarantees in my view, that were sought by the Prime Minister of Lithuania.

April 30, 1990
Privilege


LINGUISTIC MINORITIES
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. In exchange for a federal contribution totalling $26 million over ten years, Saskatchewan promised to set up a system for the control and management of minority schools by the Fransaskois.
We know the provincial government has withdrawn from this agreement. Since Saskatchewan broke its contract, shouldn't the federal government withdraw its contribution and give it to the minority so that it can look after its own interests?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, there is a Canada-Saskatchewan agreement involving $26 million. As I said before, I regret the delay in introducing legislation to hand over management of the schools to the francophone community and francophone parents. Certain amounts of money are being transferred through this agreement and will be used in a process that is now taking place, and we will stand by the agreement that is now in place. I see the Saskatchewan government's commitment as a very firm one, despite the delay, and our commitment is firm as well.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that minorities have the right to control and manage their own educational institutions.
We know that four provinces, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and P.E.I. have such a system. None of the other have it. I ask the Secretary of State: Will he convene a conference of the provinces to discuss this matter with a set timetable, with something like a constructive approach to settle this problem which is getting out of hand?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I will be meeting in two weeks or a little
less with the Minister of Education for Alberta, Mr. Dinning. I intend to see what progress we can make.
It comes about as a result of a very constructive meeting I had with ACFA, Association ccmadienne frangaise de iAlberta. I do intend to write to all my provincial counterparts and do hope to be able to make very important progress on this matter, that I know is of extreme concern to the member and to all members of Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to advise the House that I have notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam. Immediately after that I will be hearing the hon. House leader of the government. However, with the consent of the House the House leader has a matter which I think might be helpful to the House. If I could have consent I would hear him first. Then I would hear the hon. member. I need the consent.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Andre:: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to indicate that it is my intention to call an Opposition Day tomorrow, to designate tomorrow a Supply Day for the opposition.


PRIVILEGE
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises out of an answer in Question Period.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, for three years I have been doggedly trying to get the government to deal with the question of international arms dealers, and specifically our involvement in the Iranian contra affair. I put the question to the Prime Minister today and he suggested that it is somehow subversive, that is disloyal or traitorous.
I have a sense of humour like the Prime Minister, but I put it as a very serious question. It is a serious matter. It is not a joke. For three years we have been trying to get the government to make public an investigation in Canada over this very serious matter.
April 30, 1990

There has been new evidence that it has come to light. I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw the suggestion that the matter is subversive and disloyal in any way, that in fact it is a serious matter and his government will respond to it.


Mr. Speaker:: I know that the member put the question in a serious way, even though the way the question was put might have elicited some attempted humour in reply.
The right hon. Prime Minister may wish to comment.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I always take questions and suggestions from my hon. friend very seriously.
I did, indeed, take the last one very seriously. The government offered the hon. member the opportunity to have a complete, confidential briefing on the information available to us so that he could then base his questions on knowledge as opposed to conjecture and rumour.
I regret that I heard the hon. member decline the invitation of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Perhaps he would like to reflect upon that and perhaps change his mind. I can assure my hon. friend of something that he already knows well and that is that anything that would offend him in any way at any time, I would withdraw.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government responses to several petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House today
Routine Proceedings
that during the next 10 days we will be commemorating and celebrating the liberation of The Netherlands by the First Canadian Army. It will be 45 years ago on Saturday since Lieutenant General Charles Foulkes, Commanding Officer of the First Canadian Corps, officially accepted the surrender of the German forces in The Netherlands.

The surrender came at the end of a long, tough battle to liberate the people of the Netherlands from their oppressors. During that battle, our armed forces kept access routes to the major port of Antwerp open so that the Allied advance would not slow down through lack of supplies.

It was a struggle that saw our forces prevail over a do-or-die enemy and the worst ground conditions encountered during the war in western Europe. More than 7,600 Canadians died during that successful struggle to return freedom to others. Later this week, in the company of members of this House, I will have the privilege of leading a pilgrimage to The Netherlands, in order to honour the memory of those men and women and to celebrate what they achieved.

On the other side of the ocean, we will have an opportunity to meet thousands of our veterans, guests of the many "Thank you, Canada" committees in the Netherlands.

Mr. Speaker, the Dutch people have never forgotten what young Canadians from every province and every service achieved 45 years ago. Neither should we, ourselves, ever forget those who won our country such enduring respect.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege to respond to the statement just made to the House by the hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs.

April 30, 1990
Routine Proceedings
On this, the approaching forty-fifth of the liberation of The Netherlands, we commemorate the more than 7,600 Canadians who gave their lives for freedom. At the same time, we, the people of Canada and The Netherlands together, take comfort in the knowledge that out of the anguish and the horrors of war, there developed warm and powerful bonds of friendship that still endure today.
The foundation of a special relationship between our countries was established during the dark years of the Second World War. When Holland was overrun by the Nazis in May 1940, Queen Wilhelmina sought refuge in England and from there headed her country's government in exile. But even Great Britain was a precarious haven and in 1942, the Crown Princess Juliana was persuaded to leave for Canada where she made her wartime home, another dimension to this tangible and historic bond.
Perhaps I should mention in the context of what we are discussing here this afternoon that only this weekend I spoke with the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs, accompanied by Mr. Fred Williams of the Royal Canadian Legion, Newfoundland. They had just returned from the pilgrimage abroad to commemorate the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Battle of Gallipoli, one that is deeply ingrained in the minds and hearts of many veterans of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment who served in that campaign. They remarked on the solemnity and the reverence of that occasion.
Mr. Speaker, as the Official Opposition veterans affairs critic, I am very pleased to join the minister's pilgrimage to The Netherlands to pay tribute and to honour the memory of those Canadians and to recognize what they achieved for others and for themselves in the cause of freedom.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my caucus and my party, it is a pleasure to join with the minister and my colleague from the Official Opposition to also recognize these coming days in honour of the forty-fifth anniversary of the liberation of The Netherlands by the First Canadian Army.
I had the pleasure and privilege of being there five years ago on the fortieth anniversary in the company of George Hees, the former minister, who won a Distinguished Service Cross in the Schelde Estuary, trying to get across the canal.
I appreciate the fact that the minister has invited me and some other colleagues to join him at the celebrations in Holland next week and the week after.
One thing impressed me very much in that previous experience. I am sure I will find it again starting next week. That is the school children, all three generations from the last 45 years, learn what happened from 1939 to 1945 and what Canadians did. I just wish more of the same would happen in our schools-not for the glorification of war, but for what we did to fight for peace in our own country. I hope that among ourselves and others we will do more to make sure that Canadians, present and future, will be fully informed.
Outside of this Chamber right now is a remembrance, a gift from the people of Holland, tulips in bloom. There could be no finer gift to decorate this Hill and these buildings. We who attend these ceremonies over the next 10 days will do our best to express our appreciation to the committees all over Holland which organize and provide hospitality and accommodation for thousands of Canadian veterans.
Many hundreds of Dutch people became spouses of Canadian veterans. These Canadians were very smart. They married people from Holland. I have a number of these people in my riding.
I hope, Sir, that this House will continue the tradition of each year acknowledging both World Wars and the Korean War, wars that had to be fought and in which we fought. We took no part in those wars that did not have to be fought. That is to the everlasting credit of our country.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House the fifteenth report, in both official languages, of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.


PETITIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of a number of people from the community of Kamloops. These people point out a whole list of
April 30, 1990

grievances regarding the government's proposed goods and services tax. They are calling upon the Liberals in the Senate to stop this tax dead in its tracks right away.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition on another topic. Petitioners are still concerned over the government's decision to cut back on VIA Rail. These are petitioners from western Canada who are calling for the government to reconsider the decision to close down a good part of the VIA system and introduce a modem passenger train service for Canada from coast to coast.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present, on behalf of a number of residents from the riding of Vancouver South, a petition that calls upon Parliament and the Canadian government to take immediate and effective measures to secure Mr. Leo's release from prison. They are imploring Parliament to do everything possible to help this Canadian citizen.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I have two sets of petitions signed by constituents of my riding of York West.
The first one, and there are about 15 petitions, asks this government to go back to the drawing board with respect to the GST. We know that the GST is currently in the hands of the Senate. The petitioners ask the government to have a second look as this is going to damage and undermine the fabric of not only average and middle-class Canadians but as well many of the small businesses that are the engines and the creators of jobs across the country.


PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the second petition concerns Pearson International Airport. It comes mainly from individuals who live in and around the Pearson air flight zone.
They are asking that a further runway not now be constructed and that the enforcement for late night travel past midnight in the wee hours be stopped. This
Routine Proceedings
will allow individuals living in those neighbourhoods to have a viable neighbourhood to live in not only for the short term but for the long term as the airport looks toward expansion.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, today it is my privilege to bring forth many petitions that oppose the goods and services tax and the negative impacts this tax will bring upon Canadians.
They voice their opinion from my riding in Essex- Kent and ask the government to reconsider its position.


PROTECTION AND REGULATION OF FISH STOCKS
Guy H. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, I have here a number of petitions signed by residents of Robertville, Pointe-Verte, Madran, Belle-dune, Petit Rocher and Beresford.
Your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to extend its jurisdiction to include the entire continental shelf, as permitted under international law, so that Canada can protect and regulate the fish stocks that are vital to Atlantic fishermen and to all Canadians.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions signed by several hundred of my constituents in Bruce Mines and surrounding areas of the Algoma district.
They call on the government to not proceed with the goods and services tax because of the adverse effect it will have on low income and elderly people throughout the riding.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 259 will be answered today.

April 30, 1990
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Alberni): For each calendar year from 1984 to 1990 (to date) have any Native fishermen been charged in British Columbia with violations of the Fisheries Act and, if so (a) what number were (i) charged (ii) convicted (b) what number of charges were (i) withdrawn (ii) dismissed (c) for those convicted, in each case, what sentence was imposed?


Bernard Valcourt: In British Columbia, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans does not maintain a record of the number of Native fishermen charged with violations of
the Fisheries Act. However, the Department does maintain records for prosecutions involving individuals who qualify for an Indian food fish licence under Section 27 of the British Columbia (General) Regulations.
The Department is only able to provide data relating to charges initiated by DFO staff. Charges initiated by Provincial authorities tasked with enforcement of the Fisheries Act, are not recorded by DFO.
The attached table sets the number of files processed (ie; incidents), the number of charges laid and the final disposition of these charges, for the period 1984 to 1990 (to date).



DFO ENFORCEMENT STATISTICS


[Stage Direction]
Year	Number of Files	Charges Laid	Convictions	Withdrawn	Dismissed	Acquitted1984	79	121	73	19	20	01985	156	309	143	118	30	01986	254	489	235	168	53	01987	309	583	222	164	38	01988	174	358	61	37	17	21989	339	646	156	90	31	61990	8	10	1	1	0	0Sentence	Annee	Probation	Suspended Sentence	Absolute Discharge	Jail	Conditional Discharge	Fine	Total Fines	Charges Outstanding1984	1	7	6	2	3	54	$ 6 526	91985	5	15	1	7	1	114	$ 16 580	181986	4	31	3	12	4	181	$ 25 741	331987	11	15	5	22	6	163	$ 27 195	1591988	1	2	2	5	0	51	$ 10 230	2411989	6	3	0	4	2	141	$ 25 070	3631990	0	0	0	0	0	1	$ 25	8
April 30, 1990
Mr. Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered.


William James Kempling: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S. O. 52 AKWESASNE RESERVE

Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 161 wish to move the adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of extreme urgency, namely, the violence on the Mohawk community of Akwesasne which is partially in my riding.
This violence has resulted in shootings, grenade blasts, arson, beatings, injuries and now the evacuation of hundreds of citizens of the village of St. Regis. Mr. Speaker, as you will know, this community is located less than 50 miles from Parliament Hill. This violation has got to stop. This issue has to be raised publicly in this House now.



SPEAKER'S RULING

Mr. Speaker:: I received notice of the application of the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell on a matter which is extremely important.
The hon member put questions to the appropriate minister during Question Period today. The response of the government through the right hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated the seriousness of the matter, and also his appreciation of the steps that the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has al-
Govemment Orders
ready taken both outside this Chamber and inside this Chamber on the matter.
Members will know that there is an allotted day tomorrow. Under those circumstances, I would not, as I would ordinarily do, order an emergency debate. Depending on what happens tomorrow I would invite the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, if he deems it necessary, to apply again.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of motion of Mr. Lewis that Bill C-26, an act to amend the Railway Act (grain and flour subsidies), be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee; and on the amendment of Ms. Clancy (p. 8227).
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of Ministerial Statements, Government Orders will be extended seven minutes.
I believe the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden had 10 minutes of questions and comments.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, just a very brief question to my colleague.
I listened with interest to his speech earlier today. A lot of the focus was on the impacts on Atlantic Canada and the west. As he and the House will know, there are a number of small transfer elevators located in Georgian Bay, the upper Great Lakes and even the lower lakes in the upper St. Lawrence, that each year receive anywhere from 90,000 tonnes to 530,000 tonnes of at and east shipments.
I wonder if the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden can give us his impressions of what the impact on these smaller elevators will be in what we call the bay ports and the lower St. Lawrence?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right. There will be an impact on

April 30,1990
Government Orders
the Georgian Bay and other St. Lawrence Seaway ports. Not only will it impact on the ports in terms of the grain handling, there are two or three flour mills in that system that will be affected by the moving of flour to Montreal, and Halifax and Saint John in particular, for export.
The cancellation of the at and east freight rates is a relatively small saving to the government, at $30 million to $40 million a year. Yet it could mean the loss of at least two flour mills in the Great Lakes system and the grain handling facilities, not only for milling grades of wheat but for feed grains, a fair amount of which is produced in Ontario.
As I pointed out earlier this day, when the Atlantic provinces are forced to consider bringing in com from the United States and feed grains from western Europe there is something fundamentally wrong with the government's policy. The ramifications of this action by the government are far wider than just a reduction in subsidies for the transportation of milling grain and flour to eastern ports.
The ramifications reach west past Regina and so the government, I submit, needs to reconsider what it is it is doing. The so-called savings under this bill will be offset by much higher costs not only to the government but to people in the milling industry, the grain terminals, the employees and the grain producers, both of feed grain and grain raised for milling into flour.
I want to thank my colleague again because the government has to reconsider what it is doing to some Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway ports, not just Saint John and Halifax, because there will be ramifications for them as well.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I too am glad to take part in this debate, but I do so with mixed feelings because we have been wrestling with the implications of Bill C-26 in the transport committee.
The bill has been before the House since last June. My hon. friend, the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden mentioned that even though we have not passed the bill, it is being implemented retroactively by the railways against the shippers.
Certainly, having been in the opposition for many years, I share the views of my friend, the hon. member
for Regina-Lumsden, in terms of the effect of retroactive legislation. That is one reason why I speak with very mixed feelings today.
This bill, which appears to be insignificant, with just two pages and one clause which amends the Railway Act and something called "at and east", is a complete mystery to most members of this House. Yet, for those of us from Atlantic Canada, the "at and east" provision of that Railway Act that is being abolished by Bill C-26 is as fundamental to us in Atlantic Canada for the export and the movement of grain as the Crow's Nest Pass was in western Canada.
I am very embarrassed that a government would bring this on without consultations with all the affected parties, as has been promised. We heard it was going to be brought forward last Thursday. Having checked with the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Council today, there has been no response to them from the ministry to discuss something that Atlantic Canadians, the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission and most of the Atlantic members were prepared to accept.
We understood there needed to be change in the "at and east" subsidy, a subsidy that was valued at $35 million in direct payments to the railways to pay the difference between a frozen rate in the 1960 climate of freight rates and the compensatory rate which obviously is a higher rate. That difference is a subsidy of about $35 million. It is quite correct, this is a budget item which, of course, is another element which gives me some concern in view of other things that have happened with budgets around here.
The sad thing is that the Atlantic community most affected by this and Atlantic members on all sides, especially the government side, have been waiting to see what was going to come from something called "offsets". "Offsets" is about as mysterious as the words "at and east". The offsets are offsets that could be done by cabinet order involving one, two or three ministers to, in effect, offset the loss of the subsidy by doing some other things, for instance, removing the tariff on the importation of American com. That itself would help somewhat to redress the loss of the subsidy.
There was to be some type of agreement with unit trains from the lakehead eastward. There were to be many things, and yet none of that has happened even though we have known about a change.
April 30, 1990

In fact, to give full credit where credit is due, it was the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission itself that came up with a proposal in 1985 suggesting changes in the subsidy. It realized that this government was trying to reduce a deficit. It was trying to be sensible and reasonable and came up with a formula to reduce the subsidy from $35 million to approximately $10 million with consequential offsets to come into place.
That was 1985. It has not happened. There has not been any movement. There has not been any response. There have been some letters. Perhaps the problem is that it involves three or four ministers of the Crown and/or the Atlantic Province Transportation Commission and the Maritime Farmers Council, but there has not been any response to the most reasonable, responsible reaction to this element of at and east which we all knew needed change.
The Budget Papers say that this is one of the subsidy programs that has outlived its usefulness because now Atlantic ports are competitive with American ports. The phrase "at and east" was introduced to have Atlantic ports competitive at and east of Buffalo with American ports, i.e., the ports of Saint John and Halifax would be competitive. That was one of the reasons for the at and east subsidy and that has been recognized by the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Council.
There is another reason, which I know is going to surprise some members of this House, why there was an at and east proposal and this was never even touched on in the Budget Papers. I will go back to the initial debate on this bill in the Transport Committee in 1966. A fellow called Mr. Pickersgill, the then Minister of Transport, came before that committee and said certain things.
We honour my friend from Regina-Lumsden today. It is his birthday and he is going to get into the hallowed halls of retirees and pensioners. He has been a most diligent, constructive, and sometimes cantankerous member of the transport committee for 21 years, but he has always brought an insight on transport matters which I wish was shared by all members of this House. I compliment him for that.
This took place just before the member came along the pike, but I happened to be there. Mr. Pickersgill appeared before the transport committee on Thursday, October 6, 1966.
Government Orders
To digress for a minute, I wish that some members of this House on all sides would start to pay attention a little more to many aspects of our history. Quite frankly, if we looked at some of our history perhaps we would not have some of the problems that we have today.
Mr. Pickersgill, the then Minister of Transport, came before the transport committee on Thursday, October 6, to explain this mammoth change in transportation. In fact, it was the new transportation policy, it set up the national transportation agency. It was the new blueprint which was not changed until the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport when we took over, brought in the new transportation act. About the at and east rates Mr. Pickersgill said, among other things:
The one other thing that affects the Atlantic provinces, in this Bill especially, is something that has never been done before, and that is the underwriting of the so-called "At and East Rates", which are the rates on grain between the lakeports and ports from Montreal east, including and being of particular importance to Halifax and Saint John. According to the Board of Transport Commissioners, these rates are already unremunerative. In the year 1966 the railways already have been paid some compensation for maintaining these rates. We have decided to keep those rates at their present level and to pay compensation for doing so. This is because we feel there is an equal obligation in this field to the obligation with regard to the Crowsnest. The purpose of this is to ensure that we will have rates which will provide some inducement and incentive to shippers to use the facilities of the Atlantic ports. This might be a debatable question but, at any rate, it is the policy embodied in this bill and I think, on balance, when we consider the terms of the Atlantic Development Board study on the ports of Halifax and Saint John, as to the effects of the increased St. Lawrence transportation, it is one very desirable offset in that field.
That explanation extends the reason why there ever was an at and east. It was not just to be competitive with American ports. It was so that Halifax and Saint John could be competitive with the St. Lawrence ports. The St. Lawrence ports are still there. They still get the benefit of coast guard, ice navigation and many elements from the Department of Transport, and I do not quibble with that. But what I do take exception to is that in his budget speech the Minister of Finance mentioned only one reason why the subsidy was there. He is right that it is not necessary any more, because of containers and everything else, for that subsidy between Atlantic ports and the eastern ports at and east of Buffalo on the American side. But it is still very necessary for Saint John and Halifax in terms of the St. Lawrence ports that are still very much there and still very much get help from the federal government through many programs.

April 30, 1990
Government Orders
I, as one Canadian from Atlantic Canada, cannot accept Bill C-26 in its present form, especially with no assurance that there are going to be offsets, because we still have something from your neck of the woods, Mr. Speaker, and from the neck of the woods of my hon. friend from Regina-Lumsden. We still have something call the Western Grain Transportation Act which distorts the movement of grain to the tune of about $850 million. I am aware of some of that history. I know there are some moves to try to reform and revise that, to perhaps give some of that money to the producers rather than paying it to the railways. There are many different things being discussed.
Well let us discuss them and try to define where we make the change. But is it fair to make the change on the little $35 million in Bill C-26 that hits Atlantic Canada right in the gonads and not do anything to the Western Grain Transportation Act which affects the western farmers to the tune of $850 million? That is not fair or equitable and that is why Bill C-26 should not be before this House at second reading until there is something done.
As I said earlier, we had the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission before the Transport Committee on February 22. They are so reasonable. In fact, I talked to the chairman afterwards and said that he most likely shot himself in both feet let alone knee-capping himself because he did not come out a little more critically of the fact that since 1985 there has been no response fundamentally to the proposals they put forward then for offsets. They were so reasonable that they said they had looked at some of those offsets and they think that perhaps they are not in the complete balance that should be applied, and they came up with another proposal. They came up with a proposal that removes the subsidy on an ongoing yearly basis and only ties it to the three winter months when, in effect, the St. Lawrence is closed and the Atlantic ports could still get the benefit of the flow of grain to the east as long as they got the subsidy to help pay the difference between the frozen rate and the compensatory rate that the railways would charge.
I just wanted to put on the record that this is much more than just a subsidy to be competitive with American ports. It is part of our national dimension. It is part of the fabric which keeps this country together. Mr. Pearson said many years ago in this Chamber that there is a price to pay to have a Canada. He was referring to the
questions about the cost of bilingualism. There are so many costs to keep this country together from coast to coast.
One of the little elements that helped us in Atlantic Canada was at and east. The Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission, on its own without pressure from the federal government, came through with suggestions to reduce that subsidy to about $10 million if there was movement on the offsets.
I want to put on the record what we are talking about when we talk about offsets. I understand that the problem is that there are four or five ministers involved and perhaps not one minister has tried to address this. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that those of us in Atlantic Canada cannot stay quiet anymore on this unless we have some assurance that those offsets are going to come into play.
I quoted Mr. Pickersgill who brought in the national transportation bill and then became the first chairman of the national transportation agency. That was a very good bill for him. But he did something good for Atlantic Canada on the at and east. For us to let that go and quietly wait for some action on the offsets is not correct for any of us from Atlantic Canada. It puts members on all sides, and especially the government side, in a very embarrassing position.
I am not talking about the moon. I am not talking about the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars in terms of offsets. Do you know what I am talking about? I am talking about unit trains to move the export grain to Halifax and Saint John, the use of water transport for the shipment of Plan "C" feed grains to Atlantic Canada, the elimination of the countervail and duty on U.S. com, provision of facilities to receive grain by water at Saint John, promotion of the continued use of Halifax for the shipment of export flour and provision of permits allowing the importation of feed grains from foreign countries. Just about all of those things involve not only two or three ministers of the government but-and this is fundamental-involve the co-operation and the action of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Often, for understandable reasons, to protect the credibility of our wheat, to make sure we had a hard durum that did not have imperfections and was not going to be diluted with soft grains, the Canadian Wheat Board, for so many years, has maintained that very proper control of the wheat trade. But there comes a time, when you are trying to help one area of the country, when quite frankly we do not need the Durum
April 30,1990

wheats and the hard cereal grains in the west, we need the soft grains and feed grains in the east.
In the meantime, we need some help at the export level to keep the elevators at Saint John and Halifax, because if you do not have elevators in Saint John and Halifax you are not going to have the wherewithal to keep these feed grains that you can develop in Atlantic Canada. That is the bottom line that is so disastrous, to have this bill come into effect with no action on the offsets.
The Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission is as sad as I am that they have had no communication whatsoever, I am told, since they wrote after their appearance before our committee on Februaiy 20, 1990. I find that regrettable at best. Perhaps I had better watch what I think at the worst, because I just cannot understand that.
The Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission came before the committee and said that they understand some of the difficulties the government is having and are prepared to suggest a new change for offsets. I want to get this on the record so that someone somewhere in the bureaucracy can finally read it because perhaps it has not got around. After all, it was only February, 1990, and perhaps it has not had time to circulate around and be addressed.
The proposal that the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission laid before the transport committee for the first time caught us all by surprise. It is as follows:
In lieu of "At and East" and proposed only to apply on an annual
basis during period of seaway winter closing:
(i)	rail rates on export grain and flour to Halifax/Saint John be set at a fixed rate differential over St. Lawrence ports at a level necessary to make the Maritime ports competitive with St. Lawrence ports and to encourage the use of the Maritime ports and the railways serving these ports;
(ii)	railways to be reimbursed by subsidy for the difference between the "fixed" rate level and compensatory rates;
(iii)	facilities to receive grain by water at the Saint John elevator be provided; and
(iv)	to prevent undue burden on the federal treasury-
These are not politicians talking, this is the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission trying to get something in place to help us. Out west they have the tariff off of com. I see colleagues of mine from the west. The parliamentary secretary is from the west. Why should they have the removal of the corn tariff in British
Government Orders
Columbia when we still have it hanging around our throats in Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada? That is part of the other discrimination.
To continue my mild remarks on their reasonable proposal, they say:
(iv) to prevent undue burden on the federal treasury, the special provision for "fixed" rates could be limited to maximum tonnages both for export grain and flour but not less than the volume required to maintain the grain elevators at Halifax and Saint John and the flour mill at Halifax as viable operations.
They end up their note by saying:
The APTC would be prepared to work with federal officials to
assist with the development and implementation of these proposals.
That is dated February 19, 1990. That is a variation of what they presented in 1985, and we had not heard. Can I stay here and stay silent as a member from Atlantic Canada when we have not even heard?
This is second reading and this is going to go to a committee. I wish one of the four ministers responsible for resolving these offsets was in the House. There was one but he has left. I wish there was a minister involved in the hoped for discussion on this issue who, before this debate concludes, could come into the House and give some assurance that there is going to be action on the offsets, perhaps not to the total satisfaction of the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission, but at least some action.
That memo to the transport committee was dated Februaiy 19 and they came on Februaiy 20 and presented their evidence and in effect supplemented what they said.
I certainly cannot support this bill at this time. I am only hoping that some sense is going to come to the ministers involved to address this serious issue. You are from western Canada, Mr. Speaker, and have been a valued member of this House for many years, as is my friend from Regina-Lumsden.
I just cannot believe that a government would bring in a bill affecting the Crowsnest Pass without a lot more deliberation, especially when there was an agency that was willing to work out a resolution of the difficulties with the loss of the subsidy. Their proposal, on their own figures, and I have not heard a rebuttal yet from the federal officials, is to reduce this subsidy on their own from $35 million to about $10 million. That $10 million means the future of the elevators in Saint John and

April 30, 1990
Government Orders
Halifax, the feed situation in Atlantic Canada and what that does to our farmers in Atlantic Canada.
Quite frankly, there are some people in Atlantic Canada who suggest that in Atlantic Canada we should not even try to raise feed grains. I am not going to go that far.
I just want to conclude by saying that never in my experience has an agency so affected by a budget matter been so reasonable, frankly I think almost to their own detriment, in not trying to organize Atlantic members in a much more aggressive way to speak on their behalf, to ensure that there is some type of offset. You have heard about the offsets that we are talking about. They are all by Order in Council with the co-operation of the Wheat Board, and yet nothing has happened.
There should not be any mystery as to why this member on this side cannot support this legislation at this time. I am only hoping that when we get this into committee, those officials charged with looking at these offsets since 1985 can indicate what they have been doing since then and/or what they have been doing since February 19, 1990.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I rise very briefly just to compliment my colleague, the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants. I am sure the people of Nova Scotia and and of the Atlantic region will be delighted to hear his comments today, comments that have been echoed on this side of the House by other members from Atlantic Canada. Perhaps my hon. friend has realized that if we do not hang together we certainly will hang separately.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member for Halifax. She could have rubbed it in even a little further. She did not really rub it in the way she could have. Quite frankly, as far as I am concerned, as some of my colleagues on this side of the House know, we have to really start to practise some of the reforms in the McGrath report with regard to issues, not on the partisan things that we run elections on, but on subject matter. This was never an issue in an election. Obviously if it had been and my party had this position
and I got elected, I would not be standing up here opposing it.
But I think the only way this place is ever going to survive is if we can have some repartee and exchanges on all sides of the House on different issues where government confidence is not involved. I appreciate that this matter is a budget item. There are different degrees of budget items but, notwithstanding that it is a budget item, I still think that on so many issues members have to start saying what they believe and let the chips fall where they may.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the hon. member, my colleague and the chairman of the transport committee. I appreciated his remarks about my birthday and service in the committee. When I get cantankerous it is usually because of the chairman.
This bill amends an ordinary statute, the Railway Act. It may have been announced in the budget but it is not a budget bill. How does he make that a budget bill? I submit that this bill is not a matter of confidence. There are occasions when members from all sides, including government members, as a last resort, can decide to let the government and the government House Leader know that they must withdraw a bill or change it or they will vote against it or stay out or something.
Does he not agree that this is one of those rare opportunities when members can do as Liberal members failed to do on the Crowsnest Pass rates when they went along with getting rid of them?
For a matter of sheer survival, if nothing else, I would think government members from Atlantic Canada should be ready to say, "Look, withdraw this bill or substantially change it or we are not going to be here to vote or we are going to vote against it". It is not an issue of confidence. How does the member say that this bill is a matter of confidence?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I will be very quick because I know other members want to speak. My friend shows his experience here in the House. All I said was it came down in the budget. I might have said a budgetary proposal, but there is no ways and means motion. I said I could not support it as it is. Whether I vote against it or not is something I have to decide. I am certainly not going to be here to support it the way it is.
April 30, 1990

I will be horrified if there are very many Atlantic members, other than the members of the cabinet, who have read the bill and understand the implications of it, who would support this bill going through now. I would have no hesitation supporting this bill if we could come up with the offsets. Frankly, the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission and others in the Atlantic farm community understood our position.
We have the bill before us now and there has been no action on the offsets. I quite agree with the hon. member. I am just not going to support it as is.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Before we go into debate again, the hon. member for Mississauga South on a point of order.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would ask the unanimous consent of the House to present the fourth report of the Standing Committee of Finance in connection with the rules and procedures of committees.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the fourth report deals with procedures in committees. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report at this time. The concurrence would be seconded by the hon. member for Ontario.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent to move concurrence?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Government Orders

William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with the other side and you will find that I have unanimous consent for the following motion:
That the reference to a Legislative Committee of Bill C-69, an act
to amend certain statutes to enable restraint of government
expenditures, be amended so that the Bill stands referred to the
Standing Committee on Finance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent to introduce his motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis that Bill C-26, an act to amend the Railway Act (grain and flour subsidies) be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and on the amendment of Ms. Clancy (p. 8227).
Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that we did not quickly adjourn this time and are giving a fair hearing, in some ways, to Bill C-26. It is not quite as fair as it should be in that the rules for implementation of this bill were carried forth last summer. It is not fair because the government directed the rail subsidies to be altered last July. It is not fair to everyone involved. Nevertheless, it is a bill that has been brought forward by the government.

April 30, 1990
Government Orders
What in fact is the at and east legislation or Bill C-26? In 1960 the Liberal government realized that various subsidies had to be put in place in order to help the areas at or east of Buffalo to compete with American ports and harbours which were sending grain to Europe and other areas. Also, it was to help them compete with Montreal and the harbours in that area. All grain subsidies were looked at and there were some rules set aside.
Some rail rates were put in place so that communities at and east of Buffalo would be able to reasonably compete with other areas of the country. The ports that were eligible for at and east until last summer were Halifax, Montreal, St. John's and areas east of Montreal. The grains that were subsidized at that point were wheat, wheat flour, oats, buckwheat, barley, rye, com and soya beans.
We all recall the budget of March or April 1989 when the Canadian government seemed to change its total perspective on what was happening in agriculture. The legislation that came down at that point must have been written by the Minister of Agriculture in the United States. If we stop and think about what in fact it stated, in 1989 it removed $90 million from crop insurance programs across this country. This year it will be $110 million. It changed our branch line rehabilitation or our rehabilitation of rail lines that carry agricultural products by $46 million in 1989 and $2 million in 1990. It changed our advance payments to crops in 1989 by $27 million and in 1990-91 it was the same, $27 million.
Dairy export subsidies were cut by $5 million in 1989 and $7 million in 1990. The farm credit cuts were $6 million in 1989 and $8.5 million in 1990. The fuel tax rebate was cut by $42 million in 1989 and $125 million this year. All of those cuts that were engineered after the free trade agreement were not designed for the betterment of Canadian agriculture but were designed for other reasons. All of those cuts were not done by the U.S., but by the Canadian government to Canadian farmers.
The at and east bill was put in place, a bill which cut $20 million in rail subsidies in 1989 and $40 million in total by 1990. The government says that it listens to Canadians. It may listen to Canadians but certainly its actions are anti what it hears. Its actions are very much against the Canadian agricultural community. These are actions very much against the solid environment that we
had in agriculture and are bringing it down more and more.
Before the election the present government suggested Canada was in a very healthy condition. They were going to put billions of dollars into helping agriculture and billions of dollars for all kinds of programs. Suddenly, after the election, we saw a very bleak picture.
We heard all we could about the debt and the deficit. We heard all about all of the difficulties that have come about in Canada. Not once was that mentioned during the election campaign. Not once was the dire effect of this budget, which cut in almost every area of agriculture, ever mentioned. Was it part of the agenda for free trade? Many people in this country strongly believe that to be the fact. Was it something that was given up at a point? Many people believe that.
In 1985 the Atlantic Provincial Transportation Commission made some very strong statements about what should happen to the program at and east. It suggested the government take no action on the at and east because it would create some serious problems in Canada. Its warning suggested that the serious economic impacts would hurt agriculture, the longshoremen and the elevator system in the east, as well as across Canada.
It suggested that the loss to the maritimes alone, if the at and east program were removed would be $27 million. It suggested that hundreds and hundreds of jobs would be lost in the Atlantic provinces, let alone the hundreds of jobs that will be lost throughout Canada as a result of this program being cut.
Capital purchases for milling ports would be lost by those who are involved in the milling of grains, not only in Ontario but throughout the eastern area. Livestock feed for cattle will certainly escalate in price when the grains that are shipped there are no longer subsidized, but are shipped in at a much higher cost. Certainly, the elevator workers in Saint John have lost their jobs because of the closing of the major elevator there.
The at and east program affects not only the east, but Ontario as well. The Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board has made some pretty strong statements about the problems with the at and east program. The at and east program did allow orderly marketing for those who were involved in the wheat program, and if you were in an area where you harvested all of your grain within approximately a four week period, that grain was shipped to market.
April 30, 1990

If you do not have a program in place that will help the shipment of grain at different times of the year, after the freeze of the lake or after other low prices of grain are there, we all know that when we take grain off during those four weeks, there is a tremendous amount on the market. The price drops quite dramatically. However, three, four, five, or six months later, the price of grain escalates quite dramatically.
To make it fair for those producers to sell their grain, not all at one time as though everyone is dumping it at the same time, a grain transportation program was put in place and elevator programs were put in place so that the grain could be taken to elevators on Georgian Bay or to other areas of Canada, stored there until such time that the price of grain improved and the grain could be sold.
With this particular bill coming into place, of three elevators on Georgian Bay, one has already been sold and two are up for sale at this point in time. This indicates that that orderly marketing, that chance that they have to sell grain throughout the winter and through the next spring, is lost. We also know that there is insufficient storage for grains in Canada and, without a grain transportation bill, those depots, those storage areas will diminish and as a result the Canadian farmer, the grain producer in particular, is going to be in a more difficult situation.
Non-availability of rail structures means a great deal to the demise of the price of wheat throughout the Canadian production. Ontario wheat producers produce
700,000	tonnes of wheat, 450,000 tonnes of which is exported at the best market price possible. As a result, there will be bottlenecks and stoppages where producers will not be able to gain the best market for their grain.
The government, in undermining the at and east bill, also moves along to undermine orderly marketing. Removal of at and east places in jeopardy the ability to move and export grains to customers in many different regions as well. The Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board indicated that the program will totally undermine the orderly marketing procedure. What the at and east program would in fact do or has done is diminish the
Government Orders
chances of bottlenecking of products and sales all at one time.
Let us look back at the issue of free trade. As the government continues down its unilateral process to reduce the agriculture programs and subsidies that have been in place for several years, the U.S. has not taken one step in dealing with its programs and its subsidies. The Atlantic Provincial Transportation Commission has recommended the removal of countervail duties on American com. Reactions such as this not only hurt the existing situation, but damage the economy in other parts of Canada.
If we allow American grain into Canada, the Atlantic producers, Ontario producers or western producers will suffer a great deal of hardship. This program seems to divide our country quite dramatically. It pits one area against another. Those kinds of issues should have been taken into account before this transportation bill was brought into effect.
Even though the at and east subsidy was announced in 1989 and the bill was not presented until June 1989, subsidies ceased on July 26, 1989. We are now debating the bill in April, going on May 1990, when subsidies were cut last July. We certainly have to look at the government and its respect for the parliamentary process.
Railroads have been instructed to take their lost subsidies into account as of July 1989. The government bypassed the House of Commons and bypassed the parliamentary process in doing such. Why are we here debating nine months after the actions of the bill have been taken? It seems quite ridiculous and quite unacceptable that we are in this position at this time. This government continues to do that type of thing. It not only loses credibility with the Canadian public but it loses credibility with everyone involved in any programs. At any time the government can retroactively cancel a program and take back the money or subsidies that have been put in place by bills or other measures.
People functioning under many of our programs have to be very confused and upset. They have to wonder whether the grant they are receiving is going to be

April 30,1990
Government Orders
carried through properly or if the government going to ask for pay-backs at a later time.
When the government placed the GST ads in newspapers, we suggested that it was overlooking the view of Parliament. With this it seems much worse. The actions were put in place nine months before the bill was debated in the House of Commons and that is a shame. The government has suggested there will be a saving of $40 million. That is misleading. It is a false saving. If the maritime economy suffers, as it has, then we must pay unemployment insurance to help those who have been foisted out of their jobs. We have to look at the extra costs to the producers of chickens, pork and beef who have to pay extra funding for the grains that they feed to their animals. Then, somebody else is paying the bill. Much the same way that the finance minister foisted expenses on to the provinces, he is again here foisting expenses onto other areas of government and foisting expenses on to other production areas in the maritimes. It is costing somebody that extra money. Certainly it is costing in the wrong way, a non-productive way.
pushing the farm community aside when our counterparts are doing just the opposite? The U.S. is more highly subsidizing. Certainly, I know of no program where it has taken away the profits, the subsidies, the help that it has given its farmers. Was it an agreement that was made before? Is it just the realism of the free trade agreement that is coming down on paper, things that we were not aware of that were discussed and put in motion in 1988 which are now being placed?
I am not clear, but as I look at our budgets, as I look at what is happening to agriculture and as I look at the pressures that are coming through Canada, I feel very strongly that Canada, particularly in agriculture and transportation, is strongly under attack.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments? Since there are no questions or comments, debate.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-26, an act to amend the Railway Act with respect to the grain and flour subsidies.

We need to have programs in this country which really bring about better production, not cut jobs, not cut security, not cut agriculture. The maritime economy has been very hard hit lately. We all know that. Adding extra costs to the livestock and poultry feed costs is no option. The loss of milling quality wheat in the maritimes will result from this bill. When we are already suffering the loss of VIA Rail, losses in the fishing industry and high unemployment, that is very unacceptable to me and I am certain it is unacceptable to you, Mr. Speaker, that the government now foists another problem on the maritimes.
Ontario will also be affected. The Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board has made its comments on how it will be affected. All of Canadian agriculture will suffer, particularly at this time. We face low prices and we face a great deal of pressure and demand from the U.S. free trade agreement. We are suffering as a result of world subsidies on grains, and certainly as a result of the battle between the United States and the European markets.
Why is Canada at this time taking away the support we had for this very valuable agricultural industry and
This bill before us is but one in a series of measures announced in the 1989 budget by this government, which has the effect of harming Canadian farmers, dismantling piece by piece the underpinnings of orderly agriculture marketing, and abandoning Atlantic Canada once again.
Like many other pieces of legislation introduced by this government, the elimination of the at and east subsidy is ill-conceived. Like many other pieces of legislation introduced by the government, this bill has as much to do with this government's mistaken approach to free trade as it does with deficit reduction. The way in which this government has proceeded with this measure is an insult to our respect for democracy and the rule of law. In the strictest sense, the at and east program allows for the shipment of grain and flour to ports east of and including Montreal, by rail, at a fixed rate. The program's cost is $40 million annually.
In a report by the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board we read about the at and east: "In due consideration of the economics associated with the at and east program, as applied to the total marketing process, the Ontario Wheat Board considers the program to be invaluable to its operation and to the interests of all facets of the industry". It went on to say that for the amount of dollars extended in the subsidy program, it
: V;

April 30, 1990

may be the best and least expensive insurance plan available to the eastern marketing system.
The government has decided that the at and east program should be eliminated. We on this side ask why the government is doing this? It is possible the government just did not have all the facts when it announced its intention to eliminate the program in the 1989 budget.
The members opposite did not truly understand the purpose of the program, the conditions which make its continued relevancy, and the benefits the program brings to many regions of the country and sectors of our economy. I trust they are listening to the arguments being made not only by myself and my colleagues but mostly by the Ontario wheat farmers, a number of whom from my own riding who are calling on this government to withdraw this bill.
There is little question that the government made a serious error of omission in identifying the original intention of the at and east program. In announcing its planned elimination, the government stated: "The intent of the program was to ensure that Canadian grain and flour shipments would continue to be exported through Canadian east coast ports, rather than competing U.S. ports". That is all the government said.
In fact, the intention of the government of the day in bringing in this program was twofold, not just for that reason. In addition to ensuring that eastern Canadian ports could compete with U.S. ports, the program intended to enable the ports of Halifax and Saint John to complete the ports of the St. Lawrence.
In 1966, the then transport minister said: "We feel there is an equal obligation in this field with regard to the Crowsnest. The purpose of this is to ensure that we will have rates which will provide some inducement and incentive to shippers to use the facilities of the Atlantic ports".
This omission is very important because it nullifies the government's contention that the program is no longer needed because the conditions which justify it no longer exist. One of the two reasons given by the government for its elimination is just plain wrong.
The second government justification for the program's elimination is equally misguided, but much more erro-
Govemment Orders
neous than the first. The budget papers read: "The subsidy has the effect of diverting traffic away from the Seaway in favour of subsidized rail movements and is inconsistent with the government's market-oriented policy". The government uses the term "market-oriented" as a banner, more like a shield to hide behind. These are the government's catch phrases, as though their mere invocation should be enough to stifle dissent, lest a government critic be labelled a socialist.
The fact of the matter is that this government has brought the term "market-oriented" and the term "free trade" along with it into the realms of obscurity. These terms now mean anything the government wants them to mean. Most often, that spells hardship for Canadian farmers.
The Canadian government has embarked on the path of unilateral disarmament. In the wake of the free trade agreement and in the midst of agricultural negotiations at GATT, as well as in the expectation of the subsidy negotiations with the United States, the members opposite and the government are stripping the country of programs that have served us so well. Prior to any negotiations with the free trade agreement, it was giving away the boat.
The at and east program obviously is one of these programs that should be protected, but that the government is giving up prior to negotiations on subsidies for the free trade deal. The program has resulted in benefits to Atlantic ports in the elevators of Saint John and Halifax. The at and east forms a vital part of the orderly and efficient marketing of its grain by providing control over its movement of exports.
It is a system that has benefited exporters of Canadian wheat by providing a year-round supply, while at the same time, benefiting producers by protecting them from forcing to sell their wheat at a fixed time, even if that time coincides with a temporary drop in the world price. The at and east has also enabled grain producers to more efficiently utilize the limited storage and elevator space in the Georgian Bay and Great Lakes regions. It has helped to alleviate the problems of bottle-neck and congestion within our transportation system. The at and east had facilitated the development of a storage and transportation system that served producers and consumers well at very little cost to the government in real terms.

April 30, 1990
Government Orders
As the Ontario Wheat Board has stated:
The fact that non-availability of rail facilities during harvest forces
the Ontario Wheat Board to use lakeside transfer elevators within the
boundaries of Ontario in itself justifies the at and east as the board's
only economical movement to winter markets.
While the U.S. and the EEC trade war continues to strongly depress world wheat prices, what does this government do but cut out a $40 million annual program which has created jobs, increased storage capacity and formed a cornerstone of orderly marketing.
This program has done much to help the Ontario wheat producer. The elimination of the program could increase the board's marketing cost by approximately $3 million per year. Normally, they would have moved up to
110,000	tonnes out of Georgian Bay port elevators to the east coast export position by rail at $5.50 a tonne. In the absence of the program the rate may go as high as $32 a tonne.
The Georgian Bay elevators provide almost 25 per cent available storage capacity to the Ontario industry. If the loss of program leads to those elevators becoming non-economic then the board will be forced to export earlier or develop other storage alternatives. Clearly, there will be a loss of jobs and a loss of the ability of Ontario farmers to to export their wheat in an orderly manner. If the government was committed to ending the program it would have been preferable to phase out the rate assistance over a period of two or three years while at the same time negotiating more competitive rates with the railways.
This government has failed, time and time again, to consult with those who would be most adversely affected by it. As a result, it has been detrimental to the ability of these people to export to their markets in a reasonable way.
The point cannot be lost on producers that the budget change falls in line with the elimination of the two-priced wheat system and a commitment in the free trade agreement to open up Canadian markets to U.S. grains. Have the Americans been stripping their farmers of agricultural exports? No, they have not.
I have been talking about the at and east in the present tense, as though it were still around and there was a chance to change the government's mind after informed debate.
The fact is that members opposite have already done away with the program. They could not be bothered with the democratic process. Clauses 1.1 and 4.1 contain deeming provisions. Even before the bill had been debated in the House the government put the word out that all contracts signed after July, 1989, nine months ago, would not be converted by the at and east. I quote from a letter by the director of rail freight programs. He says:
The deeming provisions are intended to assure that the effective date of this measure will be July 16,1989, even if final parliamentary approval comes later.
That is no way to run a government. That is no way to run a democracy. I believe that this sentence and the attitude it betrays is an insult to each of us in this House. The government seems at times bored and impatient with parliamentary democracy. It does not seem to be listening. It does not take the time to ask before it acts. Had it listened, it might have realized that there were ways to alter the at and east program to better serve Canadians, not needlessly harm them.
I could go on about its effect on agriculture in the maritimes but I understand my friend, the member for Dartmouth, will be talking about that shortly. In closing, we on this side do not appreciate the way the government has dealt with this issue.
The government should not try to reduce the debt and the deficit on the backs of the farming community and rural Canada. If that is its intention, it should first negotiate and talk with those who would be adversely affected by such a program and, in that way, try to alleviate some of the hardship that these programs would cause.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment my colleague, the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk, on his excellent speech and intervention on this piece of legislation. I want to draw particular attention to his very cogent suggestions about the way in which a reconsideration of the at and east subsidy program could have been approached by this government, rather than the hamhanded fashion in which it was carried out, with no consultation, and effectively cutting the rates without even bringing the matter before Parliament. That is something that I discussed in my own remarks today.
April 30, 1990

I would like to ask the member to elaborate on some of the points that he has made, particularly from his perspective as a member representing an agricultural riding in southern Ontario. What effects would the bill have on the producers in his area? What alternative arrangements have been proposed that were not considered by this government?


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question.
Today, farmers in my area are facing hard times, and this is just one more attack by this government on the farming communities in our country. Wheat producers in my area can use the at and east in differing ways. The main advantage of the at and east for wheat producers in my area is to assure that they can market their product in an orderly fashion. This means that they can hold onto their product and get just that little higher price for it than they might be able to get otherwise.
That small profit allows them to survive as farmers. Farmers in my constituency and, indeed, farmers across Canada live on the edge. A $40 million program may not mean a lot to a government that is intent on reducing the debt and reducing the deficit, but it means a great deal to my farmers who only earn that little bit. It means the difference between having a viable farm operation and actually having to get out of farming all together.
I thank my hon. colleague for asking me that question because I think it is an important one. I do not think that members opposite realize how much a $40 million program could mean to the viability of farming in southwestern Ontario.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-26.
At the outset let me join with you, Sir, in your compliments to my colleague, the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden who, as you duly noted, celebrated his 65th birthday yesterday. He is a veteran of this House and a veteran of the transport committee, with at least 21 years of continuous service.
I know all members will agree that while they may not have agreed with his positions, he certainly has done yeoman service on behalf of transportation. He is very happy to once again be battling a bill that is designed to take away services in transportation, as the Liberal
Government Orders
government did with its bill to end the Crow benefit. Now, the irony of ironies is that on his birthday, the Conservative government is now attacking the at and east freight assistance program.
I also want to compliment my colleague, the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, a new member in this House who has dual responsibilities as grain and oilseeds critic and transportation critic for grain. He has done an overwhelming job in preparing for this bill and for the debates that have taken place. I do want to thank him as well for his fine work.
The at and east freight assistance program pays a subsidy to the railways on export grain and flour moving by specified routes through eastern Canadian ports. The rates paid by the shipper have been frozen since 1960 with respect to export grain and 1966 with respect to flour. It is primarily grains and flour that is coming from the west, through the port of Thunder Bay, through the Great Lakes to the bay ports, to some of the lower St. Lawrence ports and eventually railed through to Atlantic Canada to the elevators there.
Some of it does go by rail from Thunder Bay under the flour subsidy component and is taken by train through to Atlantic Canada. The program freezes bulk rates from any rail point along Georgian Bay, Lake Huron, or any waterways directly or indirectly connecting with Lake Huron and not farther east than Prescott, being shipped to Halifax, Saint John, West Saint John, Montreal and any other St. Lawrence port east of Montreal. That rate is for grain to be exported only.
With respect to flour the program freezes the rail rate on export shipments from any point east of Thunder Bay, the aforementioned ports.
The reason this program came into being was that back in the early 1960s the railways wanted to increase their rates for movement of these grains and flour. It was argued at the time, obviously very effectively, that those increased rates would price Saint John and Halifax out of the market. What was saved by a subsidy in the 1960s will be ended by the elimination of the subsidy in the 1990s if and when this bill receives third reading in this House, is passed by the other place and proclaimed.
It was felt important to maintain the rates at a fixed level so that eastern rates would remain competitive. This program has been beneficial primarily to Halifax

April 30, 1990
Government Orders
and Saint John but by no means is it an insignificant component for the port of Thunder Bay, nor is it an insignificant component for the maritime community along the Great Lakes, the shipping companies who move grains from Thunder Bay to other ports, or for the ports along Georgian Bay and Lake Huron. They, too, have had most of their existence created by the at and east program, as I will explain in a few moments.
Of all the grain moved through Saint John, 95 per cent moves under the at and east program while 67 per cent of grain moved through Halifax moved through the at and east.
With respect to flour, virtually all flour moved through the two ports moves at at and east rates. Flour amounts to approximately one-third of all general cargo handled at Halifax and 7 per cent of general cargo at Saint John.
In 1988 there were 944,719 tonnes of grain and flour moved under the at and east rate, of which approximately 90 per cent moved via the ports of Halifax and Saint John as their final Canadian ports. The cost to the taxpayers on an annual basis is $32 million, but if we look at its impact the Halifax-Dartmouth Port Development Commission says that the "economics of grain traffic at the port in 1988 amounted to $25.9 million in revenues and 263 jobs, while flour traffic resulted in $28.4 million in revenues and 220 jobs".
Quick mathematics tells me that there was a profit made for those communities and for the taxpayers. For a cost of $32 million, well over $50 million of revenue and wealth was created in the port of Halifax-Dartmouth alone. If we add the impact to Saint John, the impact to the ports along the Great Lakes, the impact to the port of Thunder Bay, to the railroads, to the shipping companies, to the farmers, I would say that this has been a very good investment by the taxpayers of Canada. We have created employment from Saskatchewan through to the Atlantic Ocean. We have kept people working, who in turn have paid taxes, and have purchased goods and services in their communities.
So I would say that a subsidy of $32 million a year is not a drain, not an expenditure that contributes to the
deficit, but it is an investment in the long-term viability of the farmer, the flour mill operator, the shipper, the port worker, the elevator operator. Because the grain is for export purposes, it assists Canada in its foreign trade balance, ensuring that this wonderful product that we grow on our prairies and in Ontario and Quebec can be exported to feed others in other parts of the world.
However, the government is prepared to throw all that away. In the name of deficit reduction, in the name of harmonization, and as part of the over-all plan to eliminate subsidies because they are evil-much like they did with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement-all of these jobs, all of the stability is placed at risk. Is there not a better way to protect the livelihood of the producers and of those who move and process these grains? Perhaps there is, but it certainly has not been found yet.
We heard earlier from the chairman of the transport committee, who expressed his concern that the government of the day had not come up with any alternatives, had not met the requests of the people of Atlantic Canada who were looking for what he called offsets. Not one of the items that he mentioned has been dealt with in any way. I do not necessarily agree with his suggestions, but clearly it does indicate the failure of this government to balance out its desire for deficit reduction with the desire for Canadians to keep working.
A moment ago I talked about the benefits, particularly to the Atlantic Canada ports. Let me talk a bit about the ports in Ontario who depend on the at and east program for their survival. For some, like Collingwood, the at and east share is only 3.2 per cent of their operations. However, at Midland, 34 per cent of the shipments that they handle are at and east; Owen Sound, 30 per cent; Port McNicoll, 87 per cent or 232,936 tonnes over a five year average are handled by that port; Sarnia, nearly 13 per cent of the grain that they handle comes under the at and east; Prescott, nearly 18 per cent and so on.
This is not just a benefit for Atlantic Canada. This is clearly a benefit for those small port communities along the Great Lakes. We have already heard reports of those elevators being in jeopardy.
April 30, 1990

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that if we check the record we will find that one of them has already closed since the illegal termination of the at and east rates last summer.
The other interesting thing that seems to be be ignored in this debate-people will say shipping by water is cheaper, and yes it is. If I had my druthers, all of the bulk commodities moving from the prairies would move through Thunder Bay and be placed on a vessel and transported down the seaway rather than going by rail. It is more efficient from the point of view of energy, and more efficient from the point of view of the environment. It just makes so much more sense. Plus, there is a spin-off of creating a lot of jobs in my constituency, which would certainly go down well in Thunder Bay.
But what people do not understand is that towards the end of the season when the freeze-up begins in the Welland Canal area, the lakers from Thunder Bay are still able to carry export grains to the bay ports. They basically fill up those elevators in the late fall and early winter. That is the grain shipped under the at and east program throughout the winter months to provide a continuous flow for Halifax and Saint John. That will now cease to exist. Instead of having a mix of water and rail east of Thunder Bay, we are going to lose both, because we know that the grain will not be moving.
This is not the first attack on the system. Thanks to the Western Grain Transportation Act passed by the previous Liberal administration just before they were defeated in 1984, there was a section which unwittingly changed the balance in Canada. It changed from a market-driven distribution, and by that I mean it did not matter which direction the grain was going to flow, the price was the same. But under the WGTA, shipments through the west coast are treated, in effect, differently than they are through the east coast. The rail rates are equalized and distributed according to distance between the farm gate, Thunder Bay and Churchill on the east and Vancouver and Prince Rupert on the west, but the water component east of Thunder Bay, and even the rail component east of Thunder Bay is not included. So there was always an extra cost.
The Canadian Wheat Board, which has a mandate to get the highest price for the lowest cost for the producer, something that we fundamentally agree with, is forced to maximize the west coast. This leaves Thunder Bay with
Government Orders
the residuals and Churchill with very, very little, even to the point where grain is being exported through the port of Vancouver destined for Egypt and they have to go through the Panama Canal to make that delivery. It is because of the WGTA.
I realize that is not the bill before us, Mr. Speaker, but I thought it was important in the context of the shift away from the traditional water commerce component of the Great Lakes and the shift away from Atlantic Canada and Quebec. As grain movements through the seaway on the Canadian side have gone from 60 per cent of exports going through Thunder Bay and the seaway, we are now down to 30 per cent. That means that Baie Comeau, Port Cartier, Quebec City, Halifax and Saint John are losing valuable vessel traffic. The elimination of the at and east subsidy is only going to make those matters worse. It may mean, for example, that our already dwindling seaway fleet which was 160 or 180 ships 15 years ago, has gone down to 70 or 80 ships currently, with a number of them having been flagged out because there is not enough trade nor is there a positive tax incentive for them to remain in Canada. The reality is that more of those ships are going to be scrapped.
When you take 400,000, 500,000, 600,000 or 900,000 tonnes of grain out of the system there has to be a reduction in the fleet, there is no question about it. I think the government has made a major error. It is trying to play poker at GATT, the General Agreement on Jhriffs and Trade, which is meeting to take a look at agricultural subsidies, to try to develop some kind of rules which are fair. But, when you are playing poker, you do not play your hand or fold before you get to the table. You wait until you are playing those cards before you make your decisions, you do not decide to get rid of a subsidy in advance of being at the table. That is what this government has done.
This government is saying that this is an unfair subsidy and that it should not exist, instead of being able to trade it off when it gets to the table. So we say what about the at and east, what about the EEC treatment and the BICEP program in the States?. The government could do a trade-off for that-if we are going to trade-but you do not throw it away before you even start because the impact is too important.

April 30, 1990
Government Orders
I do not know whether, in this great country of ours, we can ever eliminate some kind of financial assistance to the transporters of our commodities. I say that for one primary reason, the way we are built. We are an extremely long and narrow country when it comes to our population. Distances are very, very great. We produce our grain anywhere from 1,000 to 1,600 miles from our oceans. Argentina, one of our competitors, produces only 100 miles from the ocean. Australia produces at less than 100 miles from its coasts. The United States, with a much larger network of waterways through the Mississippi and other man-made canals are within 100 or so miles of water transport, which I indicated previously is the most efficient, the cheapest and the most environmentally friendly form of transportation of bulk commodities.
We cannot compete on a level playing field because we have to move our bulk commodities thousands of miles just to get to salt water, so that we can then take advantage of the ocean rates and move our goods to the purchasers.
I think the bill is wrong. I know that people in my community feel that it is wrong because they see an ever-declining workforce declining even further. Because of this we will lose jobs in the port, in the elevators, on the railway. We will lose jobs at McDonald's, the comer stores, the restaurants, and the school board. As the jobs decline in one industry, there is a trickle-down effect which means the loss of 2.8 additional jobs for every one job that is lost. That has a major impact on a community which has seen its grain handler workforce go from 1,500 or 1,600 at its peak not too many years ago, to around 700 or 800, if they are lucky, this year, with no end in sight.
I realize I just have a minute or two left. The long-term danger is that if we allow not just Thunder Bay, but the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway to become a residual carrier of our grains, there will come a time when we will have bumper crops again and the port of Thunder Bay will be asked to move upwards of 25 to 26 million tonnes of grain. It will have to rot in the fields because we will not have the elevators, boxcars or the ships to move that amount of grain. The hon. member said, "Just ship it through the U.S.".
The reality is that they too do not have the capacity to move so much grain any more, nor do they have the kind of quality controls that has led Canada to be the No. 1 producer of quality wheat in this world. It is because of our inspection and handling procedures that the Americans cannot touch our No. 1 position. No country in the world will accept grain that has been trans-shipped through the United States as Canadian grain. It is just not acceptable.
Whether it is for Atlantic Canada, the ports on the Great Lakes, the port of Thunder Bay, the men and women who produce the grain on the prairies, or the people that mill and package the flour, I say this bill should be rejected by this House because it will come back to haunt us and the government time and time again.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise to debate this motion, which in effect is another one of those cracks that we are starting to get used to, taking down Atlantic Canada.
The at and east subsidy program was cancelled in the second last budget of this government. It was cancelled under the guise of deficit reduction. Coming from Atlantic Canada, forgive me if I question the motives of the government or the reasons given for cancelling such a program. Every time we have turned around since this government has been re-elected in November of 1988, we have another reason why it cannot keep its promises or programs to assist Atlantic Canada.
I have listened to most of the debate today and the debate that has taken place up until this point. Anybody watching would be quite aware of the reasons that the at and east program was put in in the first place. It was was to keep Atlantic Canadian ports competitive in the movement of grain and flour, as were the American ports east of Buffalo, New York. It served us well.
As a result of the at and east program, the Canadian government put a cap on the movement of grain to east coast ports, and we were able to maintain a very viable industry in Atlantic Canada, particularly in the port of Halifax. There were over 220 jobs made directly possible and sustainable because of the at and east program.
We have a flour mill in Nova Scotia. It counted on the grain terminal there for its product. We had a terminal in Saint John, New Brunswick, which was very viable as it provided a lot of jobs in that area, an area that has consistently borne the brunt of economic downturns.
April 30, 1990

They were good jobs. They were healthy. We did not feel that we were getting anything that we should not have received because the government had embarked years earlier on a subsidy program out west. The government did not seem to have any difficulty when it came and told us that it had to rationalize or cut its deficit, explaining that the only place it can cut are the guinea pigs down in eastern Canada, down on the Atlantic.
I am not for one moment suggesting that the government should cut the rail transportation under the Western Transportation Act or the western grain. I am not going to suggest that.
I am not going to suggest that there should be a new benchmark put on the movement of goods down the St. Lawrence Seaway, that everything has to be on cost recovery all the time, because the government of past days has embarked on a transportation policy to ensure that our product was competitive, to ensure that the grain was being shipped from Canadian ports.
When the government felt that, under the guise of deficit reduction, it had to tackle this big problem, did it go after the Western Transportation Act and the subsidies under it? No, and thank goodness for those western ports, for the railroad out west, and for the grain producers.
Did it decide all of a sudden that it had to have increased pilotage fees for the St. Lawrence Seaway for goods that were going down there? Absolutely not. When it came time for the government to address what it thought or said was such a serious problem, it only went one place. It went after the at and east program, the program that was directly benefiting Atlantic Canada, most particularly Halifax and Saint John.
Now that by itself would give reason for great concern, because it appears once again that the government is proceeding with unholy haste to punish people in Atlantic Canada for having the foresight not to elect these guys opposite, at least not very many of them, and for having seen through the very thin veil that they presented of progressivity during the last election campaign. Every time we turn around they are creating another excuse to damage industry in Atlantic Canada. Goodness knows, if there is one industry in Atlantic Canada that does not need the type of pummelling that this govem-
Govemment Orders
ment has given our other industries, it is the shipping industry.
I rose in this House after the last budget and I raised some real concerns about basically a tax on the profits of the ports in this country. I raised a concern that the U.S. ports, particularly the ports of New York, were pouring billions of dollars into facility upgrading, because they wanted to take business from the east coast Canadian ports.
At the same point in time, Canadian Pacific and Canadian National were looking at acquiring lines directly from New Jersey or New York up to the Montreal market, and up to the Toronto and southern Ontario markets. At the same time, we see this government abandoning any responsibility for a national rail link in this country.
I talked to officials from the port of Halifax and they said that things were not good but they did not want to say it too loud and were going to try to work through the system. In trying to work through the system we saw what happened. Shortly after this particular budget and that particular cut-back, a dividend of $100 million is what the finance minister required of the ports on the east coast by way of a tax. They wanted a dividend.
The port of Halifax has been struggling to maintain its competitiveness, particularly as a result of the government's abandonment of a national rail policy. It had to cancel two major expansion projects, which makes it less competitive. The port of Halifax has been a very healthy part of our economy in Atlantic Canada, and at the very time that it is feeling the increased pressures of competition from the Atlantic seaboard ports, particularly the ports of New York, down south of the border, the government comes in with what it considers to be a necessary reduction of subsidy that, God forbid, is only going to affect Atlantic Canada. They have not rethought the rest of their domestic transportation policy or agricultural product transportation policy.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, we have heard this song before. When we went into the free trade debate, the government was so absolutely adamant that the Prime Minister of the day had to have a comprehensive free trade deal that they showed their hands to the Americans. The Prime Minister said on a nationally televised show that his political future and that of his government depended

April 30, 1990
Government Orders
on his government concluding a comprehensive trade deal with the United States, and the U.S. took them right to the wire at 11.30 at night because they knew what he had said, he had showed his cards, and as a result we got a free trade deal without even the definition of a subsidy in it.
Now as we go through further negotiations on the definition of a subsidy, as the GATT negotiations continue, and the subsidies in the agricultural sector, it appears we have had another little giveaway. The little giveaway that we have had is called the at and east program, which at this point, Mr. Speaker, has already shut down the terminal in Saint John. Fully 60 per cent of the feed grain that is going through Halifax is subsidized grain under this program, 100 per cent of the flour is subsidized and, as I said earlier, there are nearly 300 jobs, 250 jobs at least. In Halifax alone last year before this regressive change came in, 372,486 tonnes of export grain were handled in the port of Halifax.
I just want to let everybody know that we are not talking about a city the size of Toronto where 250 jobs perhaps do not mean very much. We are talking about an area of about 325,000 people.
There were 201,676 tonnes of export flour moved through the port of Halifax in 1988. I was reading a statistic before I came in which I think stated that every tonne of product, of grain or flour that is moved through that port, is equivalent to one stevedore's job.
The Atlantic Provinces Transportation Council came before the transport committee. I am glad that the chairman of the transport committee had the good sense not to wait for the government to get this bill through second reading and referred to committee. That particular committee, under the chairmanship of the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants, did an advance examination of the effects of this particular subsidy cancellation and it found out what was happening.
This subsidy was cancelled last year without this bill ever being passed by Parliament, and I should remind all Canadians of that. This government does not even care to hear the full debate on the merits of its legislation. It just goes and introduces it and then cancels it. It knows that once it cancels it, once a grain terminal shuts down, once 100 or 200 people are put out of work, the impact is
gone by the time the bill receives Royal Assent, if it ever receives Royal Assent in the other place.
When the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Council went to the transport committee, and I think it was on February 20, it had already talked about the major economic impact. At the port of Halifax, throughput at the Halifax elevator for the coming year in terms of export grain is expected to be no more than 60,000 tonnes. That is down from the last year in the program which was 372,000 tonnes.
The government did not care. It went ahead and introduced the bill last year. It saw it had some trouble on the other side and decided to put it off until the fall. But the impact has already hit Atlantic Canada. The impact on the poultry industry and the livestock industry in Atlantic Canada is going to be severe because of the shutdown of the terminal in Saint John and because of the decreased traffic through the one in Halifax which means that the per unit cost goes up in Halifax. We are going to find that the Atlantic Canadian poultry and livestock producers are going to be at an even worse disadvantage than their counterparts in the industry in Ontario, Quebec and western Canada. Goodness knows, they certainly do not need that. They are having a hard enough time as it is.
The government did not wait for a full investigation as to the impact of what it was doing. It was in such haste to give away another card in the GATT negotiations that it gave us away. It cancelled the program and it has already had its effect.
I listened to the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants earlier, and I have to commend him. I was in my office and I listened to his remarks on television. The member for Annapolis Valley-Hants has the backbone to stand up in this House and stand against the government. He had the backbone to stand up and speak for the people in Atlantic Canada who elected him. I listened to him make a plea to his fellow Conservative members from Atlantic Canada for once not to be led like dogs on a leash, not to be dragged along for fear that somehow they were going to be left out in the cold when the Prime Minister reshuffles his cabinet, and to do what was right and fight this legislation and vote against this piece of legislation.
He did that for a couple of reasons. One reason is that I believe that the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants has a keen understanding of the agricultural industry. He has been around long enough to smell a bad bill. He knows this bill is a very bad bill. He also is a little annoyed that there was a report put into the department
April 30, 1990

back in 1985 by the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Council and it recommended some alternatives. It recommended some amendments to the at and east bill that would have saved the government a lot of money, at least half of the money that was going into subsidies. It has never even received a reply.
On February 19, in a major effort toward compromise and to try to bring the government to its senses, what did it do? It came in with a set of proposals which should have been acceptable to the government, if the government had not already enacted the regulations last July. The member for Annapolis Valley-Plants was absolutely incensed today, as he should have been. I am incensed, as are other members from Atlantic Canada, that the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Committee has not even heard a response, nor has the government uttered a word about the proposals that were put forward on February 19.
My hon. colleague and friend from Halifax West, at the other end of the province right next to my riding, did not seem to have the same gumption to stand up. The last time this was before the House, the hon. member for Halifax West stood up and said, in defending this unconscionable cut, this double standard bill on the way that the east and west coast ports and the St. Lawrence ports are treated in this country, that the at and east subsidy should be cut. Then he challenged the opposition instead to join him in lobbying the government for direct assistance to farmers, the Port of Halifax and operators of the grain elevators. Who, in the name of goodness, does he think he is talking to? He says to his colleagues who are opposing this very bad piece of legislation, and opposing it on good grounds, not to complain that the thing has to be done away with, but help him lobby.
We have seen the effect of his lobby. He is the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board. If he has lobbied, he has had absolutely no success. It was just around that time that the Minister of Finance came in with a budget that in effect took $100 million away from the Canada Ports Corporation and, as I mentioned earlier, caused the cancellation of two major expansion programs in the port of Halifax and is going to make the port of Halifax and every other east
Government Orders
coast port less competitive than its American counterparts.
The hon. member for Halifax West should learn a lesson. The lesson is that sometimes it is better not to be led around by the nose. Sometimes it is better to get off the picket fence and try not to have a foot on both sides of the line and to take a stand on an issue. When you take a stand on an issue, sometimes perhaps that sharp point you get from the fence will alleviate the pain. Perhaps, just perhaps, the pain will be lessened the next time that members such as he have to go to the ballot box and explain the comments he made about how everything is all well and rosy down east with the cancellation of the at and east subsidy.


Howard Edward Crosby: You certainly know all about the ballot box, having been there once.


Ronald MacDonald: I am very happy to see that he has come into the House. I have had many of his own constituents call and ask me if I could make any sense at all out of his comments. I told them I had listened carefully to his comments, but as of yet there is not any sense. Perhaps a little later in this debate he will tell us exactly what he means, and also explain why there is a difference between his statements on the at and east subsidy, since he represents a riding near Halifax harbour, and the statements of the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants who seems to have the best interests, not just of the port of Halifax, but of the farmers of Atlantic Canada at heart.
This bill should be defeated. This bill is a thinly veiled attempt to further cut subsidies in Atlantic Canada. If the government is serious about addressing the problems in the grain transportation sector, then it should do it all at once. It should not use Atlantic Canada as a guinea pig, as a sacrifice on the GATT altar, as a sacrifice in the free trade negotiations. It should come up with a policy that recognizes the importance of maintaining the viability of ports like Halifax, not just for the trans-shipment of grain or flour, but make them much more viable than they currently are because of this government's policies.
The last thing I want to see, as an Atlantic Canadian, is this government being allowed to go forward with policies that are going to shut down what should be one of our most prosperous and viable sectors, at the expense, not just of jobs in Atlantic Canada, but also to
April 30, 1990

Government Orders
the great benefit of the ports in the New Jersey and New York areas.
I urge my colleagues opposite from Atlantic Canada to take a page from the book of the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants, show some gumption, show a great deal of skill and concern for the people of their area, and vote against this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments, the hon. member for Halifax West.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for this opportunity to dispel some of the myths that the hon. member for Dartmouth has just tried to project on the House of Commons, but I hope not across Canada.
In the first place, the at and east is dead and gone. It was finished June 23, 1988, when people stopped making use of it and the shipments under that subsidy provision stopped. We are here simply putting a finis to a book that has already been written, read and over with.
The member does not understand that. He likes to take the opportunity to get up in the House and spout off on a subject which no longer has any practical application. The at and east is finished. He does not bother to mention that the millions of dollars poured out over a long period of time under the at and east subsidy went to Canadian National Railways. They did not go to farmers, the grain elevators or the port of Halifax. They went to Canadian National Railways. What he is doing is asking the House of Commons to continue to pay more and more money to the Canadian National Railways because of the trickle down effect to the east coast ports, some farmers and some other areas of activity.
Getting rid of the at and east means that we have a new opportunity to accomplish the desirable ends in a direct fashion and not working through some outmoded subsidy. He does not even know that the competition is no longer between the east coast Canadian ports and U.S. ports, which was the origin of the at and east, but it is between Canadian ports. Fortunately, our very efficient port in Halifax can compete against the U.S. ports, but it has a little difficulty competing against the St. Lawrence ports, given the subsidization that they were given over the years by the Liberal government's failure to collect ice fees, providing free ice-breaking, and so on.
That is why we are at a disadvantage, not because of any policies of this government.
It is a shame that a member of Parliament should get up and preach rhetoric and falsehoods to the members of the House of Commons, when he should know better, but he does not know better. He does not understand the at and east. He apparently does not know that the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission, representing the three maritime provinces, has said time and time again: "Get rid of the at and east but give us offsets".
That is why I stood up in the House of Commons and said that the at and east is dead. Forget the at and east. Get on with obtaining suitable offsets to accomplish the benefits for the port of Halifax, the grain industry, the feed freight that the farmers require, and all of those things.
I say to him once again, as I complete my remarks, please recognize the simple fact that the at and east is dead. Give it a decent burial and go on to accomplish something in the future for your constituents, and all the people in Halifax. Stop the rhetoric and get on with reality.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, certainly I do not need a lecture from the member for Halifax West about the at and east program or representing the people of Atlantic Canada.


Howard Edward Crosby: Yes, you do. You need a lecture.


Mr. Fontana:: You need a muzzle.


Ronald MacDonald: My hon. friend from London is issuing a statement that might be more appropriate than anything that has been said in the House today.
I would like to address the comments that were just made by my colleague from Halifax West. I am not a great card player, but I do not think that when you are sitting down and playing poker with the jobs and the livelihoods of hundreds of people in Atlantic Canada that what you say, especially with this government, is that it will do away with the program and we will worry about the offsets later. He is quite correct that the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Council came up in 1985 and recommended some offsets. When they recommended
April 30, 1990

the offsets, this government did not even have the decency to respond.
The member for Annapolis Valley-Hants said a few minutes ago when he got up in debate in this place that he was appalled. The member for Halifax West should be appalled that the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Council once again on February 19 put some proposals forward but this government did not even give it the decency of a reply because this government does not want to listen. It is hell bent on destroying the transportation sector right across this country, particularly in Atlantic Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. On debate, the hon. member for Nepean.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand here in the House today to address Bill C-26, an act to amend the Railway Act, which terminates the at and east subsidy for the movement of grain and flour to eastern Canadian ports.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the impassioned speech of my colleague from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. Someone might wonder why I, from central Canada, am here speaking on this bill. I am very familiar with Atlantic Canada. I know what is going to happen to the ports in Atlantic Canada and I am very pleased to be speaking.
First, I want to make it clear that we are discussing a bill today at second reading which in reality has already become law. Second reading has not been completed. It has not received committee study. It has not had third reading. It has not had Senate approval. It has not had Royal Assent. This is just another prime example of a government which has absolute contempt for the workings of this Parliament. The subsidy we are discussing today has already been terminated. It was terminated over a year ago. It is a fait accompli.
The arrogance of it is only equalled by other examples set by this same government. In August of 1989, it placed full-page ads in the newspapers across the country which stated that "Canada's federal sales tax system will change. Save this notice". The ad was rebuked by the Speaker of this Parliament. He said at that time it was a contempt of Parliament. Again, this government's arrogance knows no bounds.
The at and east grain and flour subsidy program, which has been in effect since the mid-1960s, was created not
Government Orders
only to offset some of the economic advantages that U.S. eastern ports had over Canadian eastern ports, but also because Canadian farmers needed a place to consolidate their grain shipments for export. As the Hon. Jack Pickersgill said in 1966 when this legislation was being discussed: "One of the aims of the subsidy was to ensure that we will have rates which will provide some inducement and incentive to shippers to use the facilities of Atlantic ports".
Atlantic Canada had flour mills that needed a steady supply of the grains which were eligible for the subsidy, grains such as wheat, wheat flour, oats, barley, iye, com, buckwheat and soybeans.
The Minister of State for Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who spoke for the Minister of Transport when this bill was referred to the House for second reading, said that the terminating of the subsidy will "stimulate creativity and innovation. It will allow the industry to take advantage of unanticipated sales opportunities, no longer constraining potential cost savings".
Why should we believe this government? Nothing it promises comes true. I do not think that the 1,200 workers whose jobs are connected to Bill C-26 will believe this government either, nor will the 320 transport workers and the 295 who hold milling jobs in western Canada, the 75 workers in Georgian Bay ports, the 85 who hold jobs in Halifax and Saint John, and the 402 workers in central Canada.
This is the same government whose leader said in 1988: "I know something about the maritimes. As one whose first seat in Parliament was Central Nova, I feel something special for Atlantic Canada and its needs". Well, I certainly hope that the Prime Minister never tries to seek a seat in Atlantic Canada again, because I am sure he would never get it.
The government has slashed the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and it has sold out Atlantic fishermen to foreign interests. Now this government has continued to inflict hardship on Atlantic Canada with the cutting of the at and east grain and flour subsidy.
The government says it will save $40 or $60 million by ending the at and east subsidy. Let us not forget the $200 million cut out of crop insurance, $48 million cut out of advance payments for grain, $15 million cut out of the Farm Credit Corporation, $12 million cut from the Canadian Dairy Commission; a total of 339 farm support programs alone in the 1989 budget, and this government talks of saving $40 million or $60 million by cutting the at

April 30,1990
Government Orders
and east program as if it was the sole cut-back in farm subsidy.
All of these cuts come at a time when the government's own figures are showing that for the coming year farm incomes will drop in Canada 39 per cent; 101 per cent in the province of Saskatchewan, 87 per cent in Manitoba. All of this is because of cuts to their industry and this government's disregard for farmers.
The cut-backs for the coming year will see the income drop by $2.6 billion, a drop of 64 per cent. All of these cuts are coming at a time when the United States, our partner in the free trade deal, is getting ready to increase its export enhancement program.
It seems very odd to me that we are cutting back on our subsidies while at the same time our neighbours to the south are increasing theirs. This year the U.S. export enhancement program will see at least $566 million in their export programs.
By withdrawing the at and east subsidy, the markets in Atlantic Canada will now be available for imported grain out of the U.S. and other countries. Yet again Canadian producers will be deprived of another market. Atlantic Canada will have to look elsewhere for its purchases.
The withdrawal of the at and east subsidy will place a heavy burden on livestock and poultry producers in Atlantic Canada and it will take away a traditional market from western farmers.
According to this government, the free trade deal was going to benefit Canadians because it would open up agricultural markets for Canadians. We have seen the regard the U.S. has for Canadian agriculture. It used GATT to gain entrance for its dairy products into Canada and one can only wonder how the Americans will benefit from the terminating of the at and east subsidy.
According to the Canadian Transport Commission, Canadian flour exports will be practically non-existent without the subsidy. The government should realize that the at and east is an important part of processing in Canada. Yet, according to this government, there is a
lack of processing of highly-processed agri-food products here in Canada.
This government continues to contradict itself time and time again. It says we need more processing yet it cuts back on subsidies to enhance processing. This government talks about regional sensitivity and about a viable agricultural industry in Atlantic Canada but it has yet to demonstrate it.
In conclusion, it is time this government stood up for the interests of Canadian farmers. The U.S. is putting in place an export subsidy program while at the same time we are removing ours.
The at and east subsidy must be reinstated and the government should begin to fight for a level playing field. This government must act hastily to resolve the subsidy program before more farmers suffer further devastation.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to again address this bill. I do not propose to go on for too long having addressed the merits of it some time before, but I do want to make a few comments.
First, a few moments ago I listened to the member for Halifax West. I was amazed at the comments he made. I was appalled at his ignorance of the effect that this bill is having on his own riding.
He has got some basic facts wrong in the first place. He said that the program ended June 23, 1988. Well, it did not end June 23, 1988. For his edification, the bill was announced in April 1989 in the budget and the government effectively withdrew the program on July 15, 1989.
This member also talked about competition with the port of Montreal which is correct. The ports of Halifax and Saint John have some difficulty competing with the port of Montreal, that is very true. In fact, the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission back in 1985 recognized that point and that is why it put forth a proposal at that time.
If this member was paying any attention to his own riding, he would realize that. For him to stand in the House and make those comments is simply appalling. He should be ashamed of himself at what he is saying.
This bill is simply an example of this government's arrogant attitude to Parliament and its arrogant attitude
April 30, 1990

to this country. It is not surprising. This is the government that has brought in closure or time allocation something like 35 times since it has been in office. It has acted in an arrogant manner in a whole host of areas and this is simply one example.
The fact is that there is a very logical alternative to at and east as it stands now, a proposal that was put on the table in 1985 by the APTC, which is a very well respected organization.
In fact, the member from Halifax West should take the time to have a chat with those people. They might educate him a little bit on their concern for the at and east and their concern for this bill.
The effect this bill is going to have on Atlantic Canada is outrageous. It is going to affect $27 million to $30 million per year for the ports of Halifax and Saint John. It is going to put something like 250 to 300 people directly out of work. The elevator at Saint John is already closed. The elevator at Halifax is in danger of closing. Rail crews will be laid off, longshoremen, maintenance workers, elevators workers all laid off. Dover Flour Mills is on the verge of closing.
The member from Halifax West will appreciate knowing that Dover Flour Mills is now effectively out of the commercial flour market because of the loss of this program. In fact, if the Halifax elevator closes, and it may well close in the near future, then Dover Flour Mills will very likely close. If the Halifax elevator closes, it is going to have a devastating effect on the livestock industry, the poultry and hog industries in Atlantic Canada. In Atlantic Canada alone, the poultry industry is a $125 million a year industry.
In Atlantic Canada, despite the good efforts they have made with respect to growing their own feeds and grains in that area, they are still dependent upon western grains. When this program is gone, if the Halifax elevator closes, the storage facilities will be reduced. I do not know what the member's alternative is to storage facilities for the agricultural industry in Atlantic Canada if the Halifax elevator closes. The ripple effect is outstanding, especially when we have a fishing industry that is in desperate straits.
I was in Nova Scotia last week. While the fishing industry is having a very difficult time, things are not going too badly in the Annapolis Valley. People are are doing better than other areas. One wonders with the bill
Government Orders
this government now has before the House whether it is its objective to drive Atlantic Canada into poverty. If it is, it they is doing very well and has been very successful.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board has indicated that they like having ice-free ports in Atlantic Canada, at Saint John and Halifax. Certain customers, Cuba for example, would prefer to pick its grain up from Halifax or Saint John as opposed to Montreal. But all things being equal, if there are no ice-free ports, then they may just go elsewhere. There is concern that the western producer may lose markets. The ripple effect is outrageous.
The thing that is so frustrating about this bill, is that there is an alternative. It has been on the table for five bloody years and this government never paid attention to it. In fact, when the minister rose in the House to make her speech about this bill, she did not know anything about it. If this government paid a little more attention to the people of this country-


An hon. member:: She has the same problem.


Rodney Edward Laporte: -it would go a lot farther.
I just want to indicate that this bill will be going to a legislative committee. I hope the legislative committee will be making a thorough examination of this bill and hearing a number of witnesses and coming back to the government with its alternative. Perhaps the member for Halifax West would appreciate being part of that. I hope he is, because it would be very good for him to learn something.
I want to compliment the member from Annapolis Valley-Hants. He knows the situation. He has had the courage to stand up in this House and say that he is going to oppose this bill. I think that takes a lot of courage, especially in light of how this government handles people who even make any indication of opposing the government. Heaven forbid. The government never makes a mistake. I commend the member for that. I think it is very courageous for him to do that. I wish the member from Halifax West would consider such an alternative.
In conclusion, the legislative committee will be looking at this bill and coming back with some recommendations. There are some very good recommendations. There is a very good alternative on the table. If this government will look at it, it will cut the cost of the at and east program in half. It will keep the ports of Halifax and Saint John viable. It will retain the jobs and it will be

April 30, 1990
Government Orders
good for Atlantic Canada. It will be good for western Canada. It will be good for all of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We all
know that there will be a vote at seven o'clock as a result of a decision of this House made last week which deferred the vote on Bill C-15 to seven o'clock tonight. I just wonder if there would not be a disposition at this time for us to defer this vote to seven o'clock tonight and have all the members here to vote on Bill C-15 at that time.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Standing Order requires that vote tonight to begin with a bell at seven o'clock, with a vote at 7.15 p.m. Certainly the government would have no objection continuing past those votes and into this vote at that time. To be clear to all members who would be listening in their offices, the bell is at seven o'clock and the vote, I believe, is at 7.15 p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will now suspend the House until seven o'clock.


SITTING SUSPENDED
[Stage Direction]
At 5.37 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 7 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, April 27, consideration of Bill C-15, an act respecting plant breeders' rights, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being seven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 45(6) the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division at the report stage of Bill C-15, an act respecting plant breeders' rights.
The question is on Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the hon. member for Mackenzie.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.


Hon. Don Mazankowski moved: that the bill be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Iain Francis Angus: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: At the next sitting of the House.
Government Orders RAILWAY ACT


MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis, that Bill C-26, an act to amend the Railway Act (grain and flour subsidies), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Ms. Clancy (p.8227).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions.
Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on the amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of saving time, I think you would find there is unanimous consent to apply the vote just taken on our amendment, which is an important one, and apply it to the main motion, but in reverse. I take it the government would insist on that.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to indicate that we would be prepared to agree with that. However, in light of the celebration we just had for the member for Regina-Lumsden, perhaps the government would like to change its mind. Why do that to the at and east rate on Les' birthday?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed? The hon. government whip.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote in reverse in spite of the fact that it is his birthday.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 7.36 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.36 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 1, 1990