1990-03-29

[Stage Direction]
[English \

Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government, and pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed to be referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.


HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the 1989 annual report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.


Mr. Speaker:: Statements by Ministers.
% ^ ^


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that today the Minister of the Environment is making a very important statement on behalf of the government. I wonder if the government House leader could explain why the Minister of the Environment is not in the House of Commons, in the nation's capital,
making that ministerial statement, as opposed to elsewhere.


Harvie Andre: I am sorry I do not have the data right here with me, but I think the hon. member will find that this government has used the House of Commons and the Statements by Ministers provisions, on orders of magnitude, more frequently than previous governments.
Indeed, I share with the hon. member the desire that this House be used more for those purposes and I encourage colleagues to do so. In fact, we do that more so by government. I would say that that, plus other changes in respect of business, in the conduct of Question Period and so on, would go a long way toward restoring the reputation of this House as the true highest court in the land.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the government that we believe it is entirely unacceptable that a document as important as this is being released this morning, at eleven o'clock, at the Bonaventure Hotel in Montreal. The House is in session. This is an important document about environmental issues. It is a long-awaited policy that had been promised by the government. I fail to see why the government treats this House with so little consideration-


Mr. Boudria:: With disdain.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -and even with disdain, says my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, by refusing to come here, before the members of this House, to share with us the government's environmental objectives.
Mr. Speaker, I am also amazed that the briefing notes and the minister's comments were given to others before being made available to Official Opposition critics. I think that is totally unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. The government is not playing fair, and we will not play fair with the government if it keeps playing these silly games. Ministers should realize that Official Opposition critics have the same right as friends of the Conservative Party to be advised of the government's major decisions on matters of national policy, especially concerning the

March 29, 1990
Routine Proceedings
environment. We are absolutely shocked at the arrogance shown by this government in the way it treats the Official Opposition. I think it is high time they realized that if they want consultation, if they want a House of Commons that runs smoothly, they will have to share a little with us and do so more often, and the fact that they failed to do so today in the case of a document as important as this one, on the environment, a policy that has been at least 18 months in the making and which was announced by the previous minister and the present minister-Mr. Speaker, I think that is intolerable!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, first, I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge what the government House leader has indicated, that in the last number of months, indeed year, we have had an opportunity to have statements on important issues presented first in the House of Commons by ministers more often than we have seen in the past.
I want to say that we have appreciated that, and we have also appreciated the courtesy that the ministers have offered the opposition spokespersons in the area of interest, in giving advance copies of the statements so there could be an informed reaction by both opposition parties. I want to say that we have appreciated that process, and that is why, I must admit, I was rather astonished this morning, knowing that this was going to be the day when perhaps the most important ministerial statement of this government is to be made.
Having not seen a written copy of this statement or, of course, not heard the statement yet, I am assuming that this is going to be the government's opportunity to actually address the critical environmental issues facing the country.
I must admit, as my hon. colleague has indicated, that we expected that to be done in the House of Commons. Again, I am simply asking, in a very serious way to my hon. friend, the government House leader, why the minister is not here in the House of Commons making such an important statement on the environment. I understand it is going to be done in Montreal. There may
be a very good reason. I am simply asking what that reason was.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. House leader of the New Democratic Party understands, in a general sense, what the reason is.
I agree with him, and I wish this place was in fact much more the focus of the national agenda than it has been. We have done a lot in the last few years to make it more so. I am sure the hon. member will understand also that because of what may be inevitable partisanship, the circus and the performances for television and so on, there is a significant disincentive to somebody who wants to get an important message out to the country.


Don Boudria: So, if we would be kinder to the government maybe it would make more statements.


Harvie Andre: There is the hon. member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell again, that great contributor to decorum in this place, the founding member of the rat pack, lecturing about how this House of Commons should be orchestrated.
The reality is that it is the rat packs of the world that detract from this place, but I welcome-I say this genuinely-that my colleague, the member for Ottawa- Vanier, feels strongly about this place and would like to see it restored to an institution where people deal with each other with respect and where the national agenda is set. In fact, if we can engage in discussions between House leaders in this regard, seek amendments to procedures, rules and so on to achieve that, I would be more than willing to participate in that activity.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to unduly delay the procedures of the House. That is not what the objective is here this morning.
Obviously, the House is concerned, members are concerned that an important issue like this has not been brought to the attention of the House. My colleagues have raised that.
However, there is a further point that I want to make to the Speaker, quite apart from the suggestions of the minister only moments ago that perhaps if members did not criticize the government so ardently, it would be
March 29, 1990

more tempted to provide information to the House. I find that unacceptable.
Beyond that, there is the further point. Not only is the statement not made in the House, it has been made a far enough distance from the House that if one wished to go there and see the press conference, members would not be able to return to Ottawa in time for Question Period.
For instance, if a member was in Montreal listening to this press conference now, it would be most unlikely that after the conclusion of the press conference, the member in question could actually come back to Ottawa in time for Question Period in order to question the government.
There are three issues: first, that it has not been tabled in the House; second, that the government has now indicated to us that the determination of the opposition toward questioning the government is a contributing factor; and finally that the government has made this decision far enough away from the Hill in order to prevent members from being here to ask questions today on the issue, either deliberately or otherwise. I am not suggesting that it is necessarily deliberately, but nevertheless the distance factor is there, and it does prevent the House from being able to be apprised of this issue, and for the issue to be questioned by hon. members today.


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one or two points in response to some of the information that has been provided to the House.
First, it is my understanding that copies of the document are to be delivered to members of Parliament offices this morning at a time coinciding with its release in Montreal.
Second, I do know that at least one member of the Official Opposition who has had a long and distinguished association with environmental issues did receive a copy of the document from the minister I think during the course of Question Period yesterday. At least that is my understanding. Whether more were distributed in advance or not I do not know, but I hand delivered to the minister a copy of the document which was destined to go to the hon. member for Davenport. Perhaps the Official Opposition House leader is not aware of that but I believe that was done.
Routine Proceedings


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, what happened is that at three o'clock I asked our critic, the member for Ottawa West, if she had been apprised of that and she said no. I told her that she had better call the minister's office. What happened after that I do not know. If a copy was given to a member of this caucus I would like to know who, as it was not given to the member who is speaking for us at this time on environmental matters.


Mr. Speaker:: This is an exchange which is of course interesting to the House. However, I think the matter has to be settled in consultation with both sides of the House and it is not a matter that I can rule on.


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


PRESENTATION OF REPORT OF DELEGATE TO CANADA-U.S. INTERPARLIAMENTARY GROUP
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House in both official languages the report of the official parliamentary delegation of the Canadian section of the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary group which attended the thirty-first annual meeting of the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary group at Kiawah Island, South Carolina, February 22-26, 1990.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present copies in both official languages of the second report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs on behalf of members of the committee. The title is "Unfinished Business, An Agenda for all Canadians in the 1990s".
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]

March 29, 1990
Routine Proceedings


STRIKING COMMITTEE
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I understand there is consent for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order of the House the
composition of the striking committee of the House of Commons be
amended by substituting the name of Mr. Iain Angus for that of Mr. Rod Murphy.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


PETITIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour and a privilege to present a petition on behalf of a number of people from the great city of Kamloops, British Columbia. The total must be over
19,000	who are asking the government to come to its senses on the goods and services tax and back off from imposing such an unfair, cruel, punitive tax on the people of Canada.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition on another matter. This is a rather sad petition because it was asking the members of the House of Commons to support the comprehensive bill of rights for children. As we know, sadly earlier this week the Conservative members voted against the comprehensive bill of rights for children. Unfortunately this petition is coming in a little late. However, I present it for what it is worth.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege to present to the House seven petitions with a total number of signatures of 8,303. The petitioners pray that the House will take action to prevent the heinous and cruel act of abortion.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition duly certified under Standing Order 36 from such diverse communities on Vancouver Island as Nanoose Bay, Port Alberni, Campbell River, Victoria, British Columbia. Those citizens are calling on this House of Commons to reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax and to reform the tax system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a petition signed by a number of citizens of the great city of Windsor so ably represented by the hon. Leader of the Opposition in this House. These people call upon Parliament to reject the government's GST which used to stand for the goods and services tax but has since been renamed the grief and suffering tax.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, I have one petition to present pursuant to Standing Order 36 that discusses the cuts in VIA Rail. The petitioners petition Parliament to maintain VIA Rail, Canada's present national network and ask Parliament to upgrade the VIA Rail with new equipment.
They are further asking for a passenger train act giving VIA Rail a firm legislative mandate and that Parliament revise costing arrangements with the rail companies.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition from a number of people in British Columbia. I add this to the thousands of names on petitions I have already presented to the House against the present proposed goods and services tax.
These people are asking that Parliament reject the current proposal for the goods and services tax and reform the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present two petitions this morning, one concerning the goods and services tax and duly authorized under Standing Order 36. The people point
March 29, 1990

out that the GST is extremely unfair. The whole idea of equality has been removed from the taxation system. They plead with the government and the Parliament of Canada to turn it down.


Ron Fisher: Mr. Speaker, my second petition concerns VIA Rail, pointing out that the transportation system in Canada demands that we have a decent passenger service on the railroad. They ask that Parliament support the maintenance of VIA and the improvement of it as well.


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 am tabling today a petition from Lebel-sur-Quevillon, in Quebec, concerning the recommendations of the Task Force on Tax Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas.
Lebel-sur-Quevillon is without question an isolated area, and that is why your petitioners consider the Brunelle recommendation to be discriminatory, unfair and inefficient with regard to the purpose of the Northern tax benefit system. It does not encourage settlement in the North and offers no incentive do develop northern resources.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr.Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present two petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of constituents of mine in the constituency of Oxford.
The petitions have been signed by some 165 citizens who humbly pray and call upon Parliament to establish a law which protects the unborn from conception to natural death.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions to the House today. The first refers to the goods and services tax, the grief and suffering tax being pursued by the government. It is a petition signed by residents of the central interior of British Columbia who
Routine Proceedings
call on the government to withdraw the tax proposal and ensure that we get a good and fair tax system.
I know they join with me in certainly urging the government of British Columbia to come clean on its participation with the Conservatives in implementing this most unfair tax.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, this petition relates to VIA Rail, which is back in the news today because of rumours of further cuts by this government.
This petition is particularly relevant because it really gets to the core of the problem. When VIA Rail was created by the Liberals they gave it some unmanageable tasks. It calls for legislation to be implemented to give VIA Rail a mandate so that it can continue to survive and operate on a rational basis.


Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to present this petition on behalf of many Canadians who oppose the goods and services tax. The petitioners feel that this tax will cause higher taxes, higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment. They call upon Parliament to reject the goods and services tax.


Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged today to present a petition from Canadian farmers who are experiencing increased costs in operation, reduced profit and low commodity prices. They are asking the government to reinstate the fuel tax rebate programs, the advance crop payments, fair and equal market access for Canadian agricultural commodities and to introduce agricultural policies that will encourage agricultural development in Canada.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions on the Order Paper be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

Government Orders POINT OF ORDER


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I just want to inform the House that I got a copy of The Green Plan-A National Challenge, but I had to go to the Press Gallery to get it. Distribution does not have it here in the House. I wonder if we could make sure that Distribution has copies of this document and we do not have to go to the media to get a copy.


Harvie Andre: I understand that has been taken care of.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Harvie Andre: That in relation to Bill C-65, an Act to provide Borrowing Authority, not more than one additional day shall be allotted to the further consideration of the second reading stage and, that 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on such day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary in order to dispose of the second reading stage shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Kamloops on a point of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to raise a matter as to whether or not this particular initiative has been dealt with appropriately.
First of all, I want to say I appreciate that the government House leader has been recently appointed and this is in no way criticizing what he has done this morning. He has the right to do that, I believe.
Mr. Speaker, I want to refer you to Standing Order 78(3):
A Minister of the Crown who from his or her place in the House, at a previous sitting, has stated that an agreement could not be
reached under the provisions of Sections (1) or (2) of this Standing
Order in respect of proceedings at the stage at which a public bill
was then under consideration either in the House or in any other
committee-
What this refers to in my judgment is that negotiations would take place between the parties and from those negotiations there would be an understanding that no agreement could be reached in terms of the amount of time left to require the completion of debate, recognizing the participation of all three political parties.
I recall a conversation taking place with the House Leader's parliamentary secretary who asked whether or not we could conclude this debate today. I think that was the nature of the discussion. I said that I was not certain, that we had some speakers who wanted to participate in the borrowing authority debate but I could not rightfully say whether or not we could conclude it today.
I must say that I was not under the impression that an agreement could not be reached either. I was not under the impression that we were not actually carrying on serious negotiations to see if we could not agree on an appropriate time for debate.
I simply raise this matter, Mr. Speaker, because I have a feeling that this is going to go on for some time in respect of future pieces of legislation. I simply want to ensure that before the government acts to close off debate using one Standing Order or another, that in fact the parties do sit down and attempt to negotiate an appropriate time for debate.
On this occasion I do not believe that process was completed. I think it was probably initiated, but I do not think it was completed. I do not recall any negotiations.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am at a bit of a disadvantage in this discussion in that the hon. member alluded to the fact that my parliamentary secretary, the member for Peace River, who is not here now, did in fact talk to him and the House Leader of the Liberal party, as I understand it, and then informed me that we could not get agreement.
The other parts of the conversation occurred in our weekly House Leaders' meeting which in fact are confidential. I would hate the record to show that somehow I am trying to pull a fast one and that I did not have the sense of it.
March 29, 1990

As you know, Mr. Speaker, this motion was introduced under Standing Order 78(3) which, as the hon. member acknowledged in his opening remarks, is quite legal and proper for a minister to do. But if he would like to co-operate with me and move the motion under the provisions of Standing Order 78(2), something which is allowed when two political parties agree, and if he is saying that he is prepared to see some reasonable time and we could agree on that, then I am quite prepared to ask for this motion to be withdrawn and replaced by a motion to which we both agree, provided of course it can be done within the reasonable amount of time that we talked about.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: If you want to co-operate and use Standing Order 78(2), then I am quite prepared to do that. In view of our conversations it did not seem to me that that was a possibility. That is the feedback I got, as well as what my parliamentary secretary, the member for Peace River, got.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kamloops has raised a complaint. At the same time, he has indicated that at least in his mind there was a possibility of obtaining a workable understanding. The hon. minister has said that in his view that was not possible.
I have had to deal with this matter before, as hon. members know. I refer all hon. members to a ruling made on August 16, 1988, as reported on page 18380 of Hansard. In the very last paragraph I had to say this: Standing Order 117 -
Which is now Standing Order 73:
-provides for a Minister to act if there is no agreement and as I stated on June 6,1988, the Chair must take a Minister's declaration at face value and cannot judge the quality of negotiations or of any proposals that may have been made.
I think that is the position that the Chair has to take.
However, I certainly can encourage hon. members, if there is still a possibility to enter into an arrangement, as the minister has suggested might be possible, then perhaps hon. members and the minister would like to discuss the matter further.
In the meantime I must accept the minister's motion as being in order.
Government Orders


TIME ALLOCATION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, it is always possible to be reasonable, and I looked up the word "reasonable", which the minister is constantly using, in the dictionary. I would like to read the definition to the House. Reasonable, is according to Le Petit Robert, means "endowed with reason". It says here: "intelligent, thinking".
Well, Mr. Speaker, we accept the minister's proposal. We are prepared-to negotiate intelligently, reasonably. If he wants to move for time allocation, perhaps he should put his motion on the Table, and we could perhaps consult further on the matter of agreeing on a timeframe for the consideration of this very important bill which will commit $25 billion in Canadian taxpayers' money. I am open to the minister's suggestion that we meet and discuss Standing Order 78(2), if he is still willing.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, that definition from the dictionary sounded like a personality description of yours truly.
I appreciate the hon. member's comments. I look forward to having those kinds of discussions on subsequent important legislation.
However, having gone through this exercise and having given adequately, as the Speaker mentioned, indications of previous negotiations, and in view of the fact that at some time the House must reach a decision, I would suggest that the most expeditious way to proceed is to proceed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I regret that comment by my friend, the Government House Leader. I hope that that expeditious process will not always be the governing process of the day. After all, a democracy does take time. A democracy can be somewhat inconvenient for a government.
As my hon. friend, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, indicated, we are not talking about a minor tax adjustment. We are talking about the borrowing of $25.5 billion. With interest rates likely going up this afternoon, that will add considerably to the deficit of Canada.
The offer was there by both opposition parties to attempt to negotiate a reasoned time to debate this incredible borrowing authority-probably the largest in

March 29, 1990
Government Orders
Canadian history-but if the Government House Leader refuses that offer as you say, Mr. Speaker, then there is nothing much you can do about it.


Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, I have just one comment to make.
I find this debate quite incredible. It appeared to me that the minister clearly stated in the House less than 10 minutes ago that he would negotiate this item. Yet when the offer was made by the Liberal party and by the NDP to do exactly what the minister requested, he said: "No, I won't". I find it quite incredible that five minutes after he has made an offer he could reject the fact that he made an offer.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: That's the Tory way.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I invite the new member to read Standing Order 78(1) and he will see that there is a provision that at any time we can agree to time allocation, if all the parties agree.


Jerry Pickard: My reference is not to Standing Order 78. My reference is to your statement.


Harvie Andre: If the hon. member would just keep his mouth shut for half a minute and let me explain, he will learn something.


Don Boudria: Harvie, you have a lot to learn too.


Mr. Speaker:: Each day we all learn something. The hon. House Leader has the floor. I would ask hon. members to give him the courtesy of hearing him.


Harvie Andre: There is also Standing Order 78(2) which states that if the majority of the parties-in other words if two of the parties-agree then the same motion could be read.
The motion would be the same. It could be done by agreement of all three parties, agreement by two parties, or by the government alone. The outcome would be the same.
What I said 10 minutes ago was that if in fact they wanted to participate with me, that is a welcome change from what I had been led to believe was the situation yesterday. I would welcome it. All they need to do is to stand up and say that 'they agree with the motion and what I have suggested could be done would be done.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that any further discussions had better take place elsewhere.
I am, of course, moved mightily by the contribution from my friend, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, I would suggest that he circulate his definition of raison-nable to all hon. members. It would be at times very helpful to me.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by commenting on the necessity of the House of Commons to pass Bill C-65 in its entirety, consisting of three clauses the major thrust of which is to authorize the borrowing of $25.5 billion.


Don Boudria: Too much. You have wasted the money we gave you last time.


Howard Edward Crosby: The hon. member says: "Too much". I suppose he is going to argue in his presentation, when his time comes, that it should be a lesser amount. The amount arises from a calculation. The calculations are beyond dispute. There is no question about the amount. There is no question about the need and the necessity for the bill. The Financial Administration Act requires parliamentary approval of long-term borrowings. This is an annual event. If my memory serves me correctly, it has happened in some years more than once.
It is no surprise to the House of Commons that the government is presenting a borrowing bill. All administrations in the past decade or more have done the same thing, so why would the opposition be so surprised and find such need to protest this action?
Of course, members of the opposition have every right to record their concern about the massive borrowing and the massive debt of the country, but do they co-operate with the Government of Canada in a program to reduce that debt and to reduce government expenditures? No. Every day in the House they stand up objecting to this. They talk about the cuts, the clawbacks, the terrible actions taken by the government, and then when the

*



March 29, 1990

swallows come home to roost-or whoever comes home to roost-they complain.
The ultimate result of all their demands is a $25.5 billion borrowing. That does not bother members of the opposition. They object to that as well. They want to spend money. They want to spend more money than the government takes in in revenue. They do not want to increase the revenue. They do not want to borrow to support the difference. All we get is negative comment that adds up to empty rhetoric that cannot possibly convince the people of Canada that anybody on the opposite side is fit to govern this nation.
Let me talk for a minute about the national debt which is the raison d'etre for the action being taken in the House of Commons today. When the government of the right hon. Prime Minister took office in September, 1984, the national debt was $160 billion.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: What is it today?


Howard Edward Crosby: I want to explain that. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier asks what it is today. That is very easy to explain. The debt was $160 billion in September, 1984. Equally important was the fact that there was a projected deficit by the Liberal administration for that fiscal year of another $38.5 billion, totalling approximately $200 billion. That was the legacy of the Liberal government of the previous two decades. That was the legacy it left the new Progressive Conservative government-a debt of $200 billion.
I want to say to my friend, John McLeod, who writes for The Daily News of Halifax who said our claim that the national debt is $200 billion is a false claim that he did not know enough to add the projected deficit for the 1983-84 fiscal year to the accumulated debt to come up with the figure of $200 billion. It is very simple.
Members opposite say the same thing all the time. They say: "Oh, yes, you had a $200 billion debt, but why didn't you reduce it?" We did not reduce it because we did not want to destroy the social programs of Canada. We felt an obligation to the people of Canada to continue social programs and the kind of spending that
Government Orders
aids and assists the economy. We could not stop in our tracks. We were very reasonable about that.
Over the last five or six years we have made a monumental contribution to the reduction of government expenditures. We are on our way to reducing the national debt. By 1995, we will actually start to repay the national debt, something that a Liberal government would not even think of doing.
Let me tell you the facts and figures on that, Mr. Speaker. When the government of the right hon. Prime Minister took office, the projected expenditures of the Government of Canada on program expenses was $16 billion in deficit. That is to say, the revenues of Canada were $16 billion less than the projected expenditures for that fiscal year.
Four years later the government has provided for a surplus in terms of program expenditures of $9 billion. That is to say, our government will collect $9 billion more than will be spent on program expenditures. That represents a turnaround in that five-year period of $25 billion.
I would like members of the House to reflect just for a moment on what would have happened if that turnaround had not taken place by virtue of the program expenditure reductions of this government. If that initiative had not been taken and we had in addition to the current projected deficit for this fiscal year $30 billion, then we would have had an extra $25 billion to add to that deficit. We would have had a deficit of $55 billion had our government not taken the action in expenditure reduction that has been taken over the last five years.
What would happen to this country with a deficit of $55 billion? We would have the situation that exists in Brazil, Argentina and many countries around the globe where people get their pay in the morning and have to spend it that afternoon, otherwise it might be worthless that evening. There would be an inflation rate going into triple digits, not double digits as the Liberal government brought us.
These initiatives by our government are paying off and are resulting in a buoyant economy. There has been seven years of continued increase in the Gross National Product. There has been seven years of reduced unemployment. I believe, and I am from Atlantic Canada, that that is the statistic that really tells the tale.

March 29, 1990
Government Orders
We have come down in the last five years from double digit unemployment of nearly 12 per cent to an unemployment figure in 1989 of 7.5 per cent. This is something that was unheard of in the days of the budgets of Marc Lalonde and Allan MacEachen and the Liberal over spending which did not even result in effective, economic benefits in terms of employment. While the Liberal government was over spending and creating this massive debt, unemployment rose to 12 per cent in Canada. Inflation was in double digits. Every economic indicator in Canada pointed to a problem in Canada which we have set about to resolve. We have resolved it by sensible economic measures and sensible financial policy-a common sense program.
What do members of the opposition do? They obstruct every effort at improvement. Earlier today you, Mr. Speaker, saw more delay in the House of Commons. I have a little argument with my good friend from the New Democratic Party from Thunder Bay-Atikokan. In this House on March 23, 1990, he made this comment:
I would prefer if members of the Liberal party had not always caved
in to work with the government to short circuit our delaying of the
House, but so be it. That is their right.
If there was any doubt in the Speaker's mind about the necessity for bringing in time allocation and for limiting the debate on a bill, which is a common occurrence in this House, then surely that statement and other activities in this House support the absolute necessity for proceeding in this fashion.
We know that members of the opposition have no real concerns about the borrowing bill that has been presented in Bill C-65. We know members of the opposition do not intend to co-operate in some sensible way to have this measure pass so that the financial requirements can be met. Thus it is unfortunately necessary that the government has to resort to these measures to get on with the work of governing Canada and the work of ensuring financial stability for Canadians.
We are always told about reductions in social programs, the threat to social programs, but any sensible person knows that the real threat to social programs is a bankrupt national treasury. If you do not have the money in the national treasury you cannot support social programs. Anybody who demands the expenditure of more and more funds on more and more programs and loses the ability to pay for those programs is destroying our social network, not aiding and assisting that network.
I urge that all members act quickly to pass this bill to ensure that the Government of Canada has the financial ability as required by the Financial Administration Act to carry on the work of restoring economic stability to this country.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the debate before us flows from Standing Order 78(3). It flows from a government that does not want to have a debate on a subject matter. Therefore it cuts off debate, gags the House of Commons and imposes a limit on debate.
I want to remind Canadians who are listening here that this Bill C-65 proposes to borrow some $25 billion. We have had less than four hours of debate on the bill. Yet the government comes in and imposes time allocation on a democratic process needed to explain to Canadians what the government is going to do with that money. It will not tell Canadians what it wants to do with that money. It will not tell Canadians what the truth of the matter is, or how incompetent it is.
The truth is that this government in the last five years, in increasing economic good times, has failed to come to grips with the deficit that was just mentioned by my colleague from Halifax. Indeed, this government has doubled the deficit from what it was in 1984. It has done that even though we have had five years of international prosperity. This government has failed even to address the annual deficit, let alone the cumulative deficit of this country. It has been totally bankrupt, absolutely incapable, absolutely incompetent.
I want to tell the minister responsible for this difficult situation we are in today that the Tories' time is running out. Yet we have to accept that the majority of this House, being Tory, will have it their way. I hope Canadians will smarten up next time and not give this bunch of bandits the chance to run down debate in the House of Commons, thereby not allowing MPs of the Official Opposition and of the NDP to make comments, to ask questions, to comment positively as we usually do on the proposals put forward by the government.
March 29, 1990

I asked the minister a few minutes ago to be reasonable. I defined the word reasonable using a good dictionary, saying that it is usually used by people who are intelligent, who are willing to think a bit. Do I take it that since this minister is not reasonable that he is not intelligent and he cannot think? I am not saying that because that would be demeaning the individual. I am saying that his politics are not intelligent. I am saying to him that his methods of using a jackhammer when he could be using a smaller tool would be much more in keeping with democratic processes.
I want to address the process. Usually House Leaders, and I happen to be the one for the Liberal caucus, meet regularly with the government side to discuss the agenda of the House, to discuss House business. It usually happens on Tuesday. The minister will give us the government's plan for the coming week.
Today, this afternoon, I will ask him after Question Period what his plans are for the coming week. He will give them to us. These plans are arrived at, we hope, following consultation with all interested parties, that is, the Official Opposition and the third party.
But, Mr. Speaker, this is the thirty-fifth time in less than five years that the government has either used closure-the gagging of the House-or time allocation. Thirty-five times the government has used one of these to ram through legislation because it would not listen to debate. It would not listen to reason. It was not being very intelligent. Yet the government wonders why, today, it is at 17 per cent in the polls. I will tell the government why. It is because Canadians are saying: "We don't want you guys over there any more. You are a bunch of incompetents. You hide from us. You are secretive. You do not tell us what is going on. Yet you ram legislation through with your majority".
I ask the member from Mississauga to sit down and listen to this. I am telling him that someday he will regret being associated with that bunch of people he calls his friends in the Tory party. He is a nice fellow, and I have nothing against him. It is the gang he hangs around with that I cannot stand. They have absolutely no understanding of what the process is all about or what democracy is all about.
Government Orders
I say the same thing to the member for Halifax West. I like the guy. He is a nice fellow, but he too hangs around with the wrong gang. He will have to account to the taxpayers come the next election. He will be very sorry to hear them say: "We don't want you any more, Howard". That is going to be the message they are going to have to give this fellow.
Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? Because they have been absolutely incompetent in coming to grips with the problems of this country. They have been unable to work with the House of Commons. Even though the government has a massive majority, it has been unable to come to us in a reasonable fashion to put reasonable things before the House. They have been unable to do as reasonable people do, that is, debate. Normally, after a reasonable debate, the question is put.
I am a very reasonable man, and even the minister will admit that. I want to negotiate time allocation if we have to, but within another a specific order. If he needs to have certain legislation, we have always said that we would co-operate.
The hon. member from Halifax West mentioned co-operate in his comments. He said that we did not co-operate.

In French, to co-operate means to operate with someone. Mr. Speaker, that is what we want to do with the government. We want to try and help them out of the present morass. We want to help these poor Tory members regain some of the pride they had in belonging to a big party that is now sadly crumbling. With 17 per cent of support in the polls, Mr. Speaker, this means not one of them would be re-elected if an election were held tomorrow. That is the truth, Mr. Speaker. And there they are, wielding a big stick, imposing closure and time allocation and telling members: we don't want to listen to sensible arguments, we don't want to listen to a democratic debate. We only want to end the debate, gag the House of Commons and impose our ideas, our ideology.
Mr. Speaker, about the mushrooming deficit referred to by the hon. member for Halifax, the Minister of Finance, when he was elected, announced a five-year plan that would reduce taxes by half by at the end of that period. Well, Mr. Speaker, he failed to keep that promise as well. Today, the federal deficit has doubled. In 1984 it was $170 billion, and today it is $351 billion. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for the Tory caucus and all the Tory

March 29, 1990
Government Orders
ministers, they started their fight against the deficit in 1984, at a time when we were in good shape and the international economy was in good shape, but the government failed to reduce the deficit in five years. The deficit is certainly not less than it was in 1984. And I ask you why, since they taxed Canadians 31 times, in the form of 31 additional taxes in five years, why none of this was able to absorb the national debt? Why? Because they are incompetent and entirely incapable of running this country, and it is high time we got rid of them, Mr. Speaker.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I must say that there are dark, evil and sinister forces at work in the House at this moment.
I look across the aisle and I see Conservative members as individuals. They are very decent people. But something happens when they get together. They start thinking in terms of totalitarianism or dictatorial initiatives; and they do not like to hear dissent. They do not like to hear people saying that they are doing the wrong thing.
Let us understand what is happening at this moment. The government decided, because it has mismanaged the economy so badly, that it had to bring in a special bill, Bill C-65, to ask permission to borrow vast sums of money. It is not hundreds of millions, or a billion dollars, but billions and billions of dollars, $25.5 billion. Can you imagine what the interest on $25.5 billion is going to cost the taxpayers of this country because of the mismanagement of the government?
The bankers love the Tories because they know that they are going to rack up the biggest debts and deficits ever seen or imagined in this country. The bankers say: "We thought the Liberals were bad, but my goodness the Tories doubled their debts".
Let us look back at what this government has done. It introduced this bill and then said: "Listen, we have to pull a quickie here because if the people of Canada realize what we are doing, they are going to get awfully upset, so we are not going to allow any debate on this bill". Can you imagine not allowing any debate on a bill that requests the borrowing authority for $25.5 billion? That is what the government says. "We do not want to hear any opposition. We do not want to hear any
criticisms of what we are doing or this incredible debt load we are about to impose on the young people of this country". So it brought in a form of closure which is a totalitarian tactic that this government now has introduced time and time again because it does not like opposition members telling the truth.
The government does not like people telling the truth. The other day there was a poor priest out in front of the Parliament Buildings. I might disagree with the cause that he represents but he has the right to stand in front of his Parliament Buildings with a small plaque outlying the cause of his concern. He has a right to do that because this Parliament does not belong to the Conservative party. This is not the Conservative government's Parliament. This is the people of Canada's Parliament.
The priest was quietly standing there day after day as his way of protesting what he thought the government was doing and to suggest to members what he thought that they should do. What does the government do? It passes a law in secret and then brings in the police to drag this poor priest down to the jail, throw him behind bars and clank the doors dosed, and he sits there for days and days in shackles, my hon. friend from Edmonton tells me. All this person did was stand in front of his Parliament, quietly, day after day. He was released from jail and now he is going to be going to court. Presumably he will be found guilty. I do not want to presume that but I suppose if the law that the government brought in is enforced, which everybody now agrees is a totally silly, oppressive law that ought not to occur in a democratic country, he will be found guilty and have to pay a fine presumably, to say nothing of others who were also arrested.
Why does the government want to do business in secret? Why does it want to do business behind closed doors? Why does it not want people to know what it is doing? Why does it not want to allow opposition members to voice their concerns? No wonder people are cynical about the government. No wonder the people of Canada do not trust the government, because it does not allow the free expression of people's views in this country. It is a very totalitarian approach, just as the East Bloc countries are opening up their systems and stating that they welcome dissent, and welcome people grouping together to express their views and indicate alternatives. While the East Bloc countries are lifting off the shackles, here they are shackling priests and throwing them in jail
March 29, 1990

for doing nothing more than simply standing in front of the precincts of Parliament.
There is something sinister about this process. We just cannot stand here and say that there is nothing we can do about this; this is something that is appropriate. It almost makes one gasp when looking at the record.
Back in 1979 the government decided to use some form of closure twice. In 1980, when there seemed to be an impasse, the government decided to use closure once to get their legislation through. Goodness knows, at the end of the day, after considerable debate, the government has the right to pass legislation, but only after reasonable debate.
In 1981 there was one effort to muzzle off the Parliament of Canada. In 1984, it was used twice. Then the Conservatives were elected and time after time closure was used. In the report I received from the Library just a few minutes ago on statistics respecting House business, we find that in the last 11 months, time allocation or closure was used a total of 15 times.
This is a government that does not like freedom of expression. This is a government that does not like freedom of speech. This is a government that does not recognize the traditions, practices and customs of Parliament. It does not recognize that there is an opposition. We have an obligation to Her Majesty to oppose and critique government legislation. That is our job. We are paid to do that, and the government will not let us do that.
Look at the times the government has closed off debate in the House of Commons, the last place where the elected representatives of the people of Canada can express their views. This is the way it has been done for decades, in excess of 100 years. This is the way it has been done in the Mother of Parliaments for hundreds of years. Yet this is the only government in Canadian history that has used closure and closure and closure, time after time and it is accelerating.
If the people of Canada really knew what was going on, they would probably be revolting. They would find what is going on revolting, and they in turn would revolt. The government is going to borrow, on their behalf, $25
Government Orders
billion. What is worse is that this afternoon the interest rates are probably going to go up, which means billions of dollars in additional interest rate payments will be paid by our children as a result of this government initiative, and after only a handful of hours of debate on one of the largest borrowing authorities in Canadian history the government states that it is not going to tolerate any more debate. That is wrong. It is undemocratic. There is no place in a parliamentary institution, after that length of time, for the government to muzzle debate. Had the debate on this borrowing authority for $25.5 billion gone on for a week or two I can see then the government stating that it is time to move this legislation to the next stage.
Is there a single Conservative member opposite, and I look at my hon. friend, the chairman of the cultural committee, who is prepared to stand up in this House and say: "I believe that after a handful of hours, one day debate, it is time for the government House leader to muzzle off the Parliament of Canada." I am waiting for them to make those comments, because those comments would have no place in a parliamentary democracy. They would have no place in a country that has prided itself on free speech. Yet, that is exactly what is going on.
In another hour and a half we are going to vote on this. I really hope that any member who rises in this House to support this muzzling of Parliament, this closing off debate at this stage of the largest borrowing authority in Canadian history and part of a process which we have never seen before in terms of being so anti-democratic, will think before they support this legislation.
Let's recognize that eventually the sides are going to switch in this House. Members opposite can be smug and say: "We are in government now and we can do anything we want." That is not the way the parliamentary system works. This is not a four year dictatorship that we have in this country. There is a role for the opposition parties. Unfortunately it has become a four year dictatorship, but the parliamentary system requires that legislation be debated. That is why we are here. It is our job to debate legislation. But to debate legislation, we must have time. We must have the opportunity to do that.

March 29, 1990
Government Orders
That is why I appeal to those members on the government side when the time comes to vote, please vote for freedom of speech. Vote for democracy and vote to uphold our traditions of Parliament that we dearly love.


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, it certainly must be Thursday noon because of what I am hearing from my hon. colleagues from the New Democratic Party this morning in the debate on this borrowing authority which the government seeks. I find what I heard this morning absolutely unbelievable.
I seem to recall a few days ago sitting in the finance committee when the very party criticizing this government for restricting debate, filibustered real debate for 30 hours on the finance committee considering the proposed goods and services tax. They really filibustered and talked about every kind of nonsense, what Canadians were not at all thinking about, and now accuse us of restricting debate. When proper debating times were given and accorded the opposition party, they were the ones who filibustered.
They stand here today screaming about the authority to borrow this money, which goes into the financing the debt, and nobody denies that there is a tremendous debt, but also funding programs. These are the very programs that the New Democratic Party always says are too little, too late. For the last six years, every time a New Democrat stood up in the House of Commons, he or she said the government did not spend enough money on a program, whether it was agriculture or whatever. When the government spent a billion, they stood up and said it is too little, too late. They would have spent $2 billion.
The fact is that the money we are trying to borrow to run this country would never have been enough for members of the New Democratic Party. They would have had to borrow $50 billion because they speak out of both sides of their mouths. They are saying we should debate the amount we are borrowing and yet I have heard for six years that whatever we did, whatever program, we never spent enough money.
Where do they really stand on the issue of financing government projects? Do they want the government to spend more on these programs, in which case there has to be revenue, in which case there has to be borrowing
authority. On the other hand, do they want to reduce these programs? I do not think any one member of the New Democratic Party could stand in the House today and persuade any Canadian to vote for them if they would reduce programs.
In fact, the very bill that we are debating is a money bill. It is a requirement of funds for programs to finance debt. Every one of them knows that prior to 1984 when the Liberals were in power, they supported the ridiculous spending programs of the Liberal party, knowing that some day Canadians would have to pay. That is exactly what is happening today. The biggest portion of our debt since 1984 is moneys to pay back former debt which is almost $100 billion or $120 billion. They do not want to stand and talk about it because even the New Democratic Party was responsible for that debt.
When we hear the hon. members from that party stand in their place and say the government gives too little, too late, there is not enough for agriculture, not enough for seniors, not enough for this and not enough for that, what they are saying to Canadians is that we should borrow more money. We should actually borrow billions more, as they were used to with their colleagues. That is what has happened and what has been suggested.
Even members of the Liberal party have stood up in their places since 1984 and said that the government has not provided enough money for programs for Canadians. That is the way of the past. There is going to be a fear as we approach the next election that that old group, the old team is going to revert back to the style of borrow, borrow, spend, spend. There will be no conscious effort to reduce the deficit as we are seeing the Minister of Finance do. They never talk that way. I recall vividly during the last campaign that the then leader of the Liberal party suggested that they were going to reduce the deficit. Yes, that was the plan. They had no way of achieving that, but that is what they had a plan for. I suppose if you were to really investigate the New Democratic's platform, somewhere hidden in small print for a specific audience, they would say: "We, too, would like to reduce the deficit." But first they would like to crank it way up to get everybody on side. This government was mean-spirited, this government did not give enough to the seniors, this government did not give enough for education.
March 29, 1990


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Felix Holtmann: There they go! I've got them clapping already, Mr. Speaker, because they want more. But then they have not decided in fact how they are going to pay for more.
My colleague in the Liberal party is starting to laugh because he sees the folly of the thinking over there. Yes, Felix, yes, Mr. Member of Parliament from Portage la Prairie, we do want more. Once again you fell into your own trap. That is why you do not get elected as a government because people are so afraid of the irresponsible actions and positions that you bring forward in the House of Commons.
In fact, maybe you belong in that corner from now till eternity to represent some of those radical left-wing views. Certainly, some constituents will say: "I have a good representative in Ottawa. He is a marvellous chap, or a wonderful lady. He really represents the way I would like to spend money. He really represents the way we should get everything from those rich tycoons living around the country. We will be the Robin Hoods". There they are, the Robin Hoods and the Robin Hoodesses-I do not know what you call a female Robin Hood, but there are some of them over there as well.
They sit sanctimoniously and righteously and say that what we are doing is wrong. Yet if they were ever in power we would probably have to borrow twice this amount. Not $25 billion. That would be peanuts for those people over there. They would have to borrow $50 billion, maybe $100 billion.
They know how to spend. But you will not find an individual in that party who knows how to balance a business sheet and knows how to make economies tick because they come from a background of non-business. They come from some sort of a social welfare background. They do not know that this country is built on hard work, people who work hard and contribute.
By the way, the Tory Parliament is represented by a cross-section of Canadians. I mean, you have them right down from pig farmers like myself to doctors, lawyers, accountants, business people, and truck drivers. I would like to take a look at the cross-section of that particular group over there in the corner because I am sure it is not veiy different. One almost has the same profession as the next, to spend money.
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, if this government knew it could get some solid and sincere debate about this borrowing act from those opposite, somebody who could hold an intelligent conversation about this particular discussion, I suppose we would endure the request to go on for a few days. But what we are getting is nonsense rhetoric. Absolutely nonsense, and rhetoric of how this government never spent enough before, never spent enough on any program, and yet on the other hand should not have the right to borrow this amount of money with which to sustain the programs and the economy of the government as a whole.
They do not know which way they would like it. It would be most interesting to hear some comments. Is anyone over there suggesting we should not borrow this money? I will bet you there is not one member of Parliament in his seat who, if he knew his pay cheque would be cut in half, would stop this borrowing authority. You never hear them talk about that, not a chance.
I just saw the entrance of one of the members of the New Democratic Party. He is probably going to put his pay cheque on the line for this borrowing authority. He says it is probably worth losing my pay cheque to stop this borrowing authority-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Kamloops.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I probably do not need to draw it to the hon. member's attention, but he has been a member here for some time and what he has just done is not what is normally done in this House, referring to the absence of members of Parliament. The implication of course is that people are aware-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That's debate. The hon. member for Etobicoke North has the floor on debate.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, the borrowing authority is traditionally an occasion in the House of Commons when members are able to debate economic policy of the government, and it is my regret that on this occasion the government has chosen to cut off debate before that discussion has taken place. There is certainly much to be said about the government's failure to provide real economic leadership in our economy, real economic leadership to the Canadian people.

March 29, 1990
Government Orders
It is a well known tenet of basic economics that a short-term deficit can be a major way of promoting growth and demand during a downturn in a business cycle. The opposite side of that equation is that when the economy re-enters a period of growth, public expenditure must be reined in, both to reduce inflationaiy pressures in the economy and to repay the debt which the government incurred when it was stimulating the economy.
This government has shown no evidence of real commitment to constraint in its spending during the past eight years of remarkable prosperity; prosperity I might point out which was to a substantial degree triggered and augmented by the spending of the previous government during a period of economic recession.
The single failure of this government to employ both fiscal and monetary policy to restore our economy to growth and expansion is everywhere evident. Since the 1981 recession, Canada has experienced uninterrupted economic growth. Yet during this period the government has allowed the public debt to more than double. The public debt is well over twice today what it was when this government entered office.
In 1988, for example, the net financial debt of the federal government, the provincial governments and the local governments across Canada was about $400 billion or over $15,000 for every Canadian. Among the other major members of the OECD, only Britain and Italy had a higher debt to gross national product ratio.
The growth of this debt is of even more concern than its size. Admittedly, there has been some modest progress in reducing the ratio of expenditures to revenue. In 1984, when the deficit reached its peak, federal expenditures were equal to 24 per cent of GDP, whereas federal revenues were only 17 per cent. By 1988, the government reminds us, federal expenditures had dropped to 21 per cent of GDP and revenues through tax increases had risen to over 18 per cent. These modest gains were more than offset by the dramatic rise in interest rates and accordingly in debt service charges.
According to the finance minister's last budget, average interest rates for the next year are forecast at over 11 per cent, while Canada's growth rate will average no more than 2 per cent.
When interest rates are higher than the rate of growth, the stage obviously is set for a further explosion in the public debt. Under these circumstances, the primary budget, that is excluding net interest payments, must generate a surplus sufficient to offset the growth in interest costs, if an increase in the debt is to be avoided. In other words, increases in revenue and reductions in government expenditure are both needed simply to overcome the rising costs of the public debt. Yet there is no evidence that interest rates will fall dramatically in the short-term, despite the Finance Minister's optimistic predictions.
Largely as a result of six years of government overspending, inflation is now running at more than 5 per cent. Moreover, escalating rates in Japan and in western Europe will force the Bank of Canada, if it chooses to continue its present policies, to raise its own interest rates if Canada wants to continue to attract foreign capital and to maintain international confidence in our dollar.
This afternoon, I think we will see interest rates increase yet again. There is certainly every reason to believe that interest rates will be even higher than those forecast by the Minister of Finance not a month ago.
What are the implications for Canadians of this mismanagement of our economy? First, we increase our net foreign liabilities. Of course, many Canadian corporations, public utilities and provincial governments traditionally have borrowed abroad. Recently, however, the national government also has turned to offshore borrowing as a way of financing its debt and its expenditures. About 30 per cent of Canadian Government bonds are now held by foreigners. With the current high levels of interest, an increasing share of wealth will now be siphoned off abroad in order to pay those debts.
Moreover, the Canadian government will become that much more addicted to high interest rates and a high Canadian dollar, if it is to continue to attract the high levels of foreign capital it believes that it needs to finance its operations and its growing debt.
March 29, 1990

The second major implication for Canada is that private investment will be discouraged by the present fiscal and monetary policies of this government. The high levels of taxation needed to finance the federal deficit has undoubtedly served to crowd out domestic investment. The Canadian economy today needs about $100 billion a year to finance itself. But since only $40 billion of this can be supplied from consumer savings in Canada, the economy looks offshore for almost $60 billion a year.
Moreover, the government's failure to solve its debt problem has raised further concerns about future levels of taxation. That, in turn, undoubtedly discourages private sector capital formation.
Further, given the current differential between domestic and international interest rates, Canadian businesses are encouraged to draw upon foreign savings, and these foreign borrowings have in turn pushed exchange rates for the Canadian dollar far beyond what our productivity would seem to warrant. The implications of a high Canadian dollar for our existing and future trade opportunities, particularly in light of our increased vulnerability to the United States, is obvious.
I want to remind the House for one moment that when we speak of government borrowing, we are also speaking of a form of social inequity. We are redistributing wealth upwards from the less affluent sectors in our society. It is after all, every Canadian who ultimately pays interest on the public debt. And since this debt is held mainly by more affluent Canadians, it is clear that there is a negative redistribution of wealth from the bottom up.
There is much more to be said about the government's present fiscal and monetary policies, but since it has chosen to cut off debate, I shall have to satisfy myself with these few comments.


Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-65, a bill with which the government wishes to borrow $25.5 billion.
This borrowing is fundamental to our government's objectives as they were presented in the recent budget. Our objectives are to cut spending and reduce the deficit. I know that the people of Calgary North are very concerned about these objectives and want to see them
Government Orders
accomplished. Any delay in passing this bill will interfere with these objectives.
There is a growing understanding in my riding about the need not only to cut expenditures as we have, but to continue to cut expenditures in the future.
The people of my riding understand that when the government took office in 1984 spending was out of control. Over $25 billion a year was being spent in terms of the balance between revenue and operating costs of the government. At that time, the government was spending $16 billion more than it was receiving in revenues. At the present time, we are spending $9 billion less than we are receiving in revenues. Despite all this, we have heard many objections about some of the actions of the government, such as the plan to bring in the goods and services tax.
My constituents realize the need to reorganize the tax system. They realize that a fundamental part of our budget is to restructure the tax system so that we have a clear-cut, visible consumption tax as well as an income tax. These are two fundamental objectives that any government should have. Those who use in society should pay in proportion to their use, and those who gain from society should pay in proportion to that gain. These are the fundamental objectives of any tax system. We have undertaken to revise the manufacturers' sales tax which is such an insidious detriment to our economy.
In Alberta, we need to free up our industry. At the present time most people do not realize that the manufacturers' sales tax means that some 1 per cent to 2 per cent of the cost of production of oil and gas exported consists of manufacturers' sales tax. For the companies operating in Alberta this means that that 1 per cent extra revenue could mean as much as a 10 per cent increase in their profits. That profit would certainly go toward improving the economy of Alberta.
With regard to the GST, I think it is also important to note that senior citizens in our area are beginning to understand how important this move is to them and that they will not be hit detrimentally by this tax. Many of them are now waiting with some anticipation for the rebates of the GST which they will receive every three months.
I was also interested to receive a delegation from the Calgary Real Estate Board. I assumed they would be telling me they were against the GST because I had heard about many individual real estate agents in my riding telling customers to buy now because prices would go up when the GST came in. But the members of the Calgary Real Estate Board acknowledged to me that only about a 1 per cent increase would take place in

March 29, 1990
Government Orders
home prices for normal-sized homes-that is up to $350,000 in Calgary-and that in fact rate of increase that takes place normally in the market roughly every two weeks in Calgary, due to the vibrant economy that we have.
Bill C-65 is simply a borrowing bill that will allow the government to get on with its job, to reduce the deficit to some $28.5 billion this coming year, and to bring it into balance in 1995. This is a difficult and, slow process, but it is important to understand that the deficit that we now have is not primarily the result of the actions of this government. This government inherited a deficit of some $200 billion and, admittedly, while it was trying to crank the spending down, it spent another $30 billion or so in addition to the revenue that it was receiving. During that time, the interest alone has added some $150 billion of interest so that we now have a debt in the order of $380 billion.
The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier indicated that we would not tell him or the House how this money that we want to borrow is going to be spent. Every detail of how we want to spend this money has been presented in the budget. The budget has outlined clearly such things as transfers to persons, some $35 billion. This $35 billion is not affected by the restraint program and the elderly will benefit to the tune of some $17.5 billion of that amount for the old age security program, the guaranteed income supplement and the spouses' allowance. The increase in this spending is due to the increased numbers of people receiving these benefits. But we have limited the increase by introducing a 15 per cent repayment program for those individuals whose net income is over $50,000. This further restrains the amount that we need to borrow under this bill.
Under the transfers to persons, the unemployed will receive some $13.3 billion. This is an increase in the amount of money spent on unemployment, despite the reduction in the level of unemployment in the country. The dollars are up because the benefits are up. We have also, quite rightly, introduced structural reform which will restrain the amount of money that we need to borrow under this bill.
Under the family allowances program, some $2.7 billion will be paid out. Admittedly, this is a lower amount than in previous years because we have fewer payments due to the smaller size of families. Again, we have been responsible in capping and restraining the need to borrow by introducing the 15 per cent repayment for those whose individual net income exceeds the $50,000.
Veterans payments remain unchanged at $1.3 billion.
There are other payments which are, of course, outlined in detail in the budget. There are the transfers to governments of $36.1 billion. These payments are being made to provincial, territorial and municipal governments, $24 billion in straight cash and $12.1 billion in tax transfers.
There is Established Programs Financing. The growth of this program has been reduced by 2 per cent in 1989 and 1 per cent more in 1990. This is further action taken by our government to cut spending and reduce the need to borrow.
The Progressive Conservative government has introduced programs to reduce spending in virtually every area and has kept the amount that we have to borrow under this bill to an absolute minimum.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, here we are again, instead of debating the contents of Bill C-65, an act to provide borrowing authority, debating another one of the government tactics to prevent debate, and that is closure. I do not know when the government is going to learn that when it brings important topics to the floor of the House, there should be no time allocation, there should be no closure.
Here is what a Canadian, the minister's friend from 401 Bay Street, Mr. Bruce Haines, thinks of the Prime Minister's and the minister's tactics of closure. I will quote from his letter:
Dear Prime Minister
You have resorted to closure in the House of Commons to fend off the avalanche of criticism directed against the GST and inundated newspapers with taxpayer-paid propaganda about the tax as if it was
March 29, 1990

already the law of the land. On the theory that a lie will gain acceptance if repeated often enough, you have urged Canadians to believe that the 7 percent GST is little more than a benign replacement of the 13-1/2 percent Federal Sales Thx (which was only 9 percent before you got elected and then only imposed on certain goods at the factory or manufacturing level).
Mr. Haines also says:
Never before have Canadians been treated so shabbily by a government which, against a nearly unanimous outcry, has expressed a determination to saddle them with the biggest and most cynical tax grab in history, the GST-Why should Canadians trust you with another dime?
On February 28, 1990, the Hon. Minister of Finance said that he was proud that he has moved, and I quote "further and faster" than his counterpart in the United Kingdom. I would suggest to him that he slow down, because if he does not, he is going to find himself out in the cold, way ahead of his hero in 1992. The race is on. Which of the two parties in question is going to be first in the loss of support among its own party colleagues? The standings to date show a draw, one Tory riding in Canada to one Tory riding in the United Kingdom. We are not even out of the starting gates.
In the United Kingdom, the last straw was the introduction of what is commonly referred to as the poll tax, a tax levied on the number of adults in a household. Estimates done by officials had put the average expected tax at approximately $565 Canadian a person. The actuals come in at approximately $742 Canadian, a difference of approximately $180 Canadian a person. This is not per household but per person. That means that for a family of four, it will cost $800 Canadian more in a year in taxes than anticipated. That is no joke.
This example begs the question of exactly how accurate the estimates that are being thrown around by our hon. minister are with respect to the GST. It also begs the question as to what exactly the government wants to achieve. Granted, the bottom line in the United Kingdom looks good in terms of financial management, but let us look at the underlying side effects of the numbers. In other words, let us look at the effects suffered by the people of the United Kingdom.
In the words of Andrew Gamble, a professor of politics at the University of Sheffield, and I quote:
-the policies of Mrs. Thatcher precipitated a major shake-out of labour and the destruction of a large part of Britain's manufacturing capacity pushing millions into poverty, destroying and demoralizing
Government Orders
many communities and accelerating the decay of the inner cities and the older manufacturing areas.
According to the OECD statistics, in every year of this decade unemployment has been higher in the U.K. than any other of the summit seven leading industrialized countries. In the latest comparable statistics from OECD, unemployment in the U.K. was over 50 per cent higher than the average of the other countries.
This will sound familiar to most of my colleagues in the House but this was as a result of cut-backs in public spending and borrowing, direct tax cuts that were counterbalanced by indirect taxes, increases via the infamous VAT which caused the burden of taxes to rise.
There are approximately three million unemployed in the United Kingdom. Beggars defined as less deserving, not less fortunate, have become a tragic visible symbol of the country's policies.
If these are the types of policies admired and embraced by the government, we are in big trouble. We better start to defeat this government now because in a few years this country will bear no resemblance to what we have come to know as Canada.
We will be in the same situation as the United Kingdom. Thank you very much but, personally, I do not want to see more food banks as a result of more families starving. I do not want to see more people sleeping on the streets than are already there. God knows I have enough of those in my riding. I have absolutely no interest in seeing one of my country's most valuable and essential resources such as water being privatized.
The hon. minister has been tightening the belts of Canadians for six years, "for their own good" he says. If the government can rid itself of the deficit all Canadians will benefit from it. Yet, he insists on keeping interest rates high-and I expect they will go even higher today-forcing the debt to grow even larger at the same time and increasing taxes and cutting back on programs for the most needy Canadians.
It reminds me of a story of a hotel owner in the Klondike who fired his bartender. "Why?", he was asked. "Because he was crooked," was the answer. "I watered the whiskey and watered the whiskey and I still couldn't make any money." The minister has been watering services to the public. He has been watering his

Government Orders
commitment to the public. He has been watering down the pockets of Canadians.
All over the world, people are opening up to new ideas. Here we have a rehashing of ideas that did not work in 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989. But for some reason they are all of a sudden going to work in 1990. The Minister of Finance said: "We have to be more productive and more competitive." He continues to reduce budgets for R-D and science and technology. He has cut, not reduced, transfer payments to provinces that will result in an incredible rise in the cost of higher education.
Are we going to harmonize our educational system with that of the Americans? The average tuition of a state university-and I am not talking about Harvard. I am talking about an ordinary university-is $18,000 American a year. Are we going to be more competitive when Canadians can no longer afford to educate themselves? Education is the most important weapon against poverty. It is the most important tool for our younger generations in trying to secure for themselves an adequate standard of living.
This fact obviously escapes my hon. colleague, the minister, who plays politics with the future of our country by passing the buck. It begs the question, the quality of brainpower behind this fudge-it budget. The priorities of this government are based on money, not people. They do not reflect the spirit of Canada. If the Prime Minister could manage to limit himself to a pair of shoes, like the majority of Canadians are forced to do, maybe a homeless family could move into his closet.
I am not trying to be funny. The question of homeless people is a growing one as less Canadians are able to afford both food and shelter. Yet this government decides to cut the social housing budget by 15 per cent in 1990-91 and a further 15 per cent in 1991-92. Over five years this budget will lose $165 million. There are over
200,000	homeless people in Canada and a further 84,000 a month who, after paying rent, have a mere $23 a week to spend on food, medicine and clothes.
The number of people using emergency food programs in Metro Toronto has doubled over the past three years. The average income of people who are forced to use
food banks is higher than in 1987, but the remaining income after rent is not.
According to a special report by the Daily Bread Food Bank located in my riding, a food bank agency that is very credible around the world-and I want to give them credit and congratulate them-states that this fact implies that people with higher incomes who were not food bank users in 1987 can no longer make ends meet today because rental costs leave them with insufficient funds to buy basic necessities. This government is picking on the very Canadians who need help the most. They have cut funding to groups for the poor, disabled persons, women, minorities, natives and seniors. To add insult to injury, we are told that we do not understand the issue. We are told that we do not understand why the government has to cut back. We are told that if we really understand the GST, we would welcome the tax. This government undermines the intelligence of Canadian people. Canadians will not accept the GST.
Mr. Speaker, I jut have one more sentence.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the hon. member's time has expired. The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak at a time when there is a cloud over this whole institution of Parliament. It is a cloud placed there by this government. After only three hours of debate on a bill to borrow some $25.5 billion, this government has again-I think it is the thirty-fifth time-invoked closure or time allocation.
Personally, I am annoyed because the last time the GST was debated in the House I was unable to speak because of closure. I was too far down the list and time ran out.
Most people in my riding are very upset with the way the government is muzzling members of this House. They are also upset with the way the government is running this country with respect to taxes. They are upset when the minister says there are no new tax increases in the budget and that is not true. They are upset when the minister says that we went through good times but now it is time to tighten our belts. People in the Moose Jaw-Lake Centre riding, who are they? They are mainly seniors, small business people, farmers and workers. They are middle income earners and lower
March 29, 1990

middle income earners. They do not mind paying their fair share of taxes, but that is not what is happening.
In Saskatchewan services and opportunities are drying up. In Moose Jaw businesses are closing at an alarming rate and housing prices are depressed. Saskatchewan alone in the last four years has lost some 50,000 people. That is 50,000 people out of a population of one million. We have 14 per cent of our population living below the poverty line. This is the second highest in the country. We have no Conrad Blacks or others of his ilk. We have no major corporations that made some $27 billion in profits and pay no income tax. We do not have those types of people. For the minister to tell the people in Moose Jaw-Lake Centre that they have to tighten their belts is simply insulting and they realize how much this government has lost touch with the people of this country.
This government is good at misleading Canadians. The finance minister says there are no tax increases in the budget. That is not true. The GST is certainly a budget bill and will increase taxes in the country to bring in an extra $5 billion in revenue a year. There is another item that the government has conveniently overlooked as well. This year's budget is really a continuation of last year's budget where cuts were made.
Because of the time, I will only focus on the area of agriculture which is important to Saskatchewan. In last year's budget announced over a year ago there were cuts that will take effect this year. Crop insurance, $110 million; at and east freight rates, $40 million; branch line rehabilitation, $4 million; advanced payments $27 million; dairy export program, $7 million; commodity-based loans, $8.5 million; Canadian Dairy Commission, $7 million; fuel tax rebate, $125 million. That is a total of $328.5 billion taken out of the agricultural economy this year from last year's budget. There are cuts and this year's budget is simply a continuation of last year's budget, pure and simple.
I have been speaking with many people in my riding who are upset and angry with this government. I would like to highlight one particular example. Mr. Bert Mick-leborough came into my office some time ago. Ele was outraged at the way the government is performing. Mr. Mickleborough has brought in tax receipts and pay stubs
Government Orders
for me to bring to the House today. He has indicated that he voted for the Progressive Conservatives in the past but certainly will not do so in the future.
I would like to outline Mr. Mickleborough's situation which is not untypical of the riding. Mr. Mickleborough is 35 years of age and lives in Moose Jaw. He is married and has two children aged 11 and 8. He is a certified engineer technician. He is working and not living off the government. He is not taking the dole. He has never been on unemployment insurance. He is a hard working member of the community.
Mr. Mickleborough feels outraged when the Minister of Finance says that Canadians have been living beyond their means. He has not. He is maintaining a very small debt, lives in a 1,100 square foot bi-level with three bedrooms, does not take holidays to Disneyland but may drive to Medicine Hat, 200 miles down the road for a holiday. He is not living beyond his means. He is outraged at this suggestion. He is so upset that he gave me his receipts indicating that in 1983 on a two-week basis his cheques were $1,320. They are now $1,722.40 which is a 30 per cent increase. However, his tax has gone up from $365.08 to $506.34 which is a 39 per cent increase.
Mr. Mickleborough is a middle income Canadian earning approximately $40,000 a year whose taxes have increased faster than his income. Now he has to face the GST tax. This typical Canadian did not intend to rock any boats. He is happy, but is so upset by statements of this government that he has come forward to ask me to bring these facts to the attention of the House.
What we need is a government which will bring forth a budget that will build for tomorrow, that has a strong commitment to the environment, that has a plan to build and sustain regional economies, that will cut the interest rate to support economic growth and restore and improve social programs. We need a government that will allow families such as the Mickleborough family to live and work in an environment that will encourage them to do that type of work.
We have lots of Mickleboroughs across the country who are hard working Canadians, who deserve better than this and are being simply ignored by this government.

March 29, 1990
Mr. Speaker, I realize my time is just about up. I would like to conclude by saying that we do need a government that will listen to all Canadians and not just to the upper crust such as the Conrad Blacks. We need a government that will respect the needs of Canadians and to allow them to have healthy, happy and productive families. This government failed to do that in the past. It continues to fail to do that now.
Bert Mickleborough is typical of many voters throughout this country and he certainly intends to let the government know his feelings next time when it really counts at the next federal general election.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, there is great concern among the snow crab fishermen of Prince Edward Island that their livelihoods will be endangered if the Department of Fisheries and Oceans drastically reduces the snow crab quota in P.E.I. zones.
It is my opinion that Prince Edward Island should not have a restricted zone. P.E.I. snow crab fishermen should have open access to the fishery, equal to the access that the New Brunswick and Quebec fishermen have.
It is discriminatory that my fishermen have to stay within a small zone which is open to the other Atlantic Canada fishermen. Prince Edward Island's 30 licenced permit holders must have a quota which both sustains their incomes and keeps the high quality crab processing line operating at the Tignish Fisheries Co-op.
Our crab fishermen support the concept of a management plan for the fishery. Stocks have been depleted and the remaining stock must be managed for the long-term benefit of all concerned.
Prince Edward Island crab fishermen were the first to exploit and develop the snow crab fishery in Atlantic Canada. I urge the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to deal fairly with this matter. That is all we expect and ask for fair and equal treatment. Five per cent of total catch based on landings of the past five years would meet the minimum requirements of P.E.I.'s crab fishermen.


JEWISH STUDENTS NETWORK
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, many members of Parliament received visits by the Jewish Students Network this week. These very concerned and thoughtful young people are getting us thinking about some very basic questions. Why is Soviet President Gorbachev opening the gates to freedom of expression and glasnost but not letting Jewish people out of Russia? Why is anti-Semitism growing in the Soviet Union? Why are so many Jewish refusnik cases still outstanding? In short, why is there developing a very ugly persecution of the Jewish people in the Soviet Union?
I want to commend the leadership of the Jewish Students Network on their initiative in creating freedom for millions of Soviet Jews. I also want to urge the Canadian government to continue to press Moscow to open any gates possible to the 30,000 exit visas for Soviet Jews which are still outstanding.
President Gorbachev, please tear down your own wall against the Jewish people.


NATIONAL SOIL CONSERVATION PROGRAM
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, agriculture is a key part of the Canadian economy. Farming and related industries provide one job in ten, and the agri-food sector must not be neglected, since it accounts for 10 per cent of the gross national product.
However, it is important to remember that agricultural productivity depends on the condition of the soil, and the week of April 9 to 15 again this year will be devoted to making Canadians aware of this resource that we must protect.
March 29, 1990

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has understood the critical importance of agriculture to us and therefore last year it instituted a three-year national soil conservation program.

[English\


FOREST AGREEMENTS
Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, according to the federal government's own figures, we are still not replanting every hectare of forest land we harvest. In 1987, the last year for which figures are available, there was a shortfall of
200,000	unplanted hectares. Despite this, this government has failed to renew forest agreements with Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario.
The current agreement with British Columbia expires on Saturday and the minister said he likely will not be able to sign a new one. He has even called the provinces' plans to clean up our backlog of harvested areas unreasonable. What is unreasonable is the complete failure of the Ministers of Forestry and the Environment to use effectively the programs currently available to regenerate and manage our forests.
The minister should sign those agreements today so that we can ensure that our forests are replanted and the necessary research is done to sustain our forests for the future.


TRIBUTE TO ISMAILI MUSLIMS
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, March 24, 1990,1 had the distinct honour to join with many leaders of the Ismaili Muslim Community in a ground breaking ceremony in Markham for the Ismaili Torrent North Central Jamatkhana which will be built over this year.
The Ismaili Muslim leaders at this historic ceremony included Nizar Kanji, the Canadian president for His Highness Prince Aga Khan Council; Mohamad Manji, the Ontario president for His Highness Prince Aga Khan
Council and His Excellency Tariq Altaf, consul general of Pakistan.
Also at this special ceremony was Barkat Ali, an Ismaili Muslim leader from Markham who first approached the mayor of Markham to obtain a piece of land for the construction of the Jamatkhana.
This special occasion marked yet another milestone in the establishment of strong institutions across Canada by the Ismaili Community and reflects their tolerance, generosity, industry and spirit of voluntarism for all Canadians.
This initiative also speaks of the Ismaili Muslim community's gratitude to His Highness Prince Aga Khan who has 20 million followers around the world.


AIR CONNECTIONS-NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, a direct, non-stop air service between the national capital region and Chicago is vital if the economy of the capital region is to continue to diversify, reducing its dependence on federal government employment and contributing to Canada's competitiveness in the world economy.
The community of Ottawa-Hull is the fourth largest urban Canadian centre. It is not reasonable that the competitiveness of this region is hampered because business trips that could be accomplished in two and a half hours now take seven to eight hours. Business that could be done in a day now takes two days, resulting in extra costs and the loss of productivity.
It is inconceivable that international travellers are unable to access the capital of Canada conveniently, economically and efficiently.
I challenge the Government of Canada to do its part in agreeing to Ottawa-Hull as a co-terminus with Montreal on the Montreal-Chicago route.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in an attempt to educate the hon. Minister of National Defence.

March 29, 1990
I would like to read a passage from a recent mailing to the Minister's Saskatchewan constituency in which the Minister said: "Saskatchewan does not have any defence establishments."
This will come as quite a surprise to the 1,300 personnel at Canadian Forces Base Moose Jaw which, the last time I checked, was still in Saskatchewan, still one of the busiest airports in North America and still home of the internationally acclaimed Snowbirds.
This will also come as quite a shock to my constituents in the city of Moose Jaw who benefit from the $55 million that the base contributes annually to the local economy.
Given the experience of Summerside, P.E.I. and Portage la Prairie, Manitoba, the question must be asked: Was the minister simply exhibiting ignorance of his ministry and his home province of Saskatchewan, or was he committing the proverbial Freudian slip?


CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the government's attention, a very serious situation for Canadian companies resulting from the Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement.
Some of you will know that under the Accelerated Elimination of Tariffs Agreement, products classified under Tariff No. 4201 will have tariffs removed on April 1.
One product group in this classification has successfully appealed, but others now have little time. They just found out recently that time was running out.
Unless action is taken now, companies such as Western Rawhide and Harness Manufacturing Company will have to lay-off their remaining production staff long before the expected date of 1995 or 1996. In fact, perhaps they will have to do it immediately.
The company will end up being a distributor of American made products. I call on the government to act now. This is but one example out of the many which are going to be affected in Canada.

The company is counting on the government. The employees and their families are counting on the government.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Mr. Speaker, in the course of my reading the other day, I came across an editorial on the dual language debate, a part of which I would like to read into the record in this House:
It behooves the people of this Canada of ours, French and English, to stand shoulder to shoulder, forgetting the differences of opinion which may exist between us and only remembering the great love we bear for our country, to push forward in the great work of building up a nationality in Canada which shall be able to challenge the applause and admiration of the world. Then the time will have come in the history of Canada when the proudest words a citizen of this country can utter will be, "I am a Canadian."
The interesting part of this editorial is that it was written on March 6, 1890.
It is repeated by me in March of 1990 and I want us to resolve that no one will be making statements like that in March of 2090. Let us, from this day forward, make our language duality a source of unity and not divisiveness in this country.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!



Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the previous statement.
Yesterday I received two letters from constituents in Delta, and I would like to quote briefly from them.
The first, one said: "Let me say I hope Quebec stays with us. They are a great people". The writer then goes on to tell of his very positive experience in World War II with his Quebec compatriots.
The second letter says: "With regard to the present turmoil surrounding the Meech Lake Accord, I would like to see more feeling put into making our Canadian French feel more at home in this country". Then the
March 29, 1990

writer goes on to give some practical ways in which this might be done.
This is a very critical time in Canada's history, as these Delta residents have shown. It is a time for understanding, patience, goodwill and effective dialogue. Canada without Quebec is unthinkable. It is time for all Canadians, east and west, north and south, to preserve this magnificent country that has such a vital role to play in the future of our whole planet, let alone ourselves and our children.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, the just released discussion paper for the Environmental Action Plan shows that this government has let Canadians down with its lack of concrete action to tackle environmental problems.
But this Green Plan serves only to buy the government time, while the Minister of the Environment struggles to convince his Cabinet colleagues of the necessity and the virtue of strong programs. Meanwhile, over 900 chemicals in the Great Lakes still have no federal standards. We are the world's largest producer of garbage, the greatest consumer of energy, one of the leading emitters of carbon dioxide, and the Tories fumble with a Federal Court order on the Oldman River Dam.
This Green Plan is just the latest example of Tory policy: All talk, no action. Canadians want concrete action taken on the environment, with measurable goals in a specific time frame with national standards.


HERITAGE LANGUAGE PROGRAMS
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, by cutting $4.1 million from heritage language programs, the government is turning its back on multiculturalism. Many of the 1,500 classes across Canada will be forced to close.
Heritage language classes cost very little, but their cultural and economic value is great. They promote cultural identity and family unity. While the Minister for
International Trade spends $14 million on Pacific Rim languages, children are denied language classes.
Leaders of major ethnic groups in Ottawa today demand continued funding. The government must listen to one-third of Canadians whose origin is neither French nor English, who demand their rights as taxpayers to funding for their children to learn their mother tongue.
CEC says cuts are bad for Canadian culture, bad for education, bad for international trade and bad for national unity.
I call on the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship to fulfil his multicultural responsibility by reinstating full funding for heritage languages immediately.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, the women occupying the Secretary of State offices in St. John's, Newfoundland have now spent four frustrating days calling for the reinstatement of funding to the women's program.
Last night, the Secretary of State graciously allowed some of his senior officials to meet with the protesters. Unfortunately, the only message they were allowed to bring was that they had no authority to reinstate the $1.6 million cut from last month's budget.
Even the senior Newfoundland cabinet minister himself, the Minister for International Trade, pointed out to the Secretary of State that the main issue is not money, but a drastic change in Secretary of State policy. Is this change in policy an attempt to stifle the voice of Canadian women?
Two ministers have now made representation to the Secretary of State to restore these funds. Does Cabinet speak with one voice, or with a forked tongue? Canadian women and men demand that the Secretary of State reinstate funding immediately. At the very least, he must meet with the St. John's Status of Women group, face to face and stop sending powerless bureaucrats.


LITHUANIA
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend and encourage the people of Lithuania.

March 29, 1990
Oral Questions
We must never forget the recent history when, from 1939 to 1941, they were forcibly annexed to the Soviet Union. Recently, however, we have witnessed the rebirth of this small country.
I am sure all members of this House would want to say: "We are one with you in your historic struggle for democracy and your right of self-determination. We encourage you and we admire your bravery".
I urge the Government of Canada to do all that it can responsibly do to assist Lithuania in its courageous march toward freedom through words of encouragement, offers of goodwill and through government action to facilitate technical assistance from our business community to theirs, and by advice where requested of our financial officials as Lithuanians seek to restructure themselves toward a free economy and a truly democratic society.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment I have a question for the Prime Minister. In the Throne Speech last April, 1989, the government promised a new environmental agenda. Instead, after a year of waiting, today the government brought forward nothing more than: "a framework for discussion on the environment". What a let-down. Just another discussion paper.
I ask the government why it has not presented today a concrete plan of action with specific measures and a timetable to implement them? Why has the Canadian government let down the Canadian people so badly today when they have been calling for real action on the environment? Where is that action?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, should, I would have thought, have been reacting more positively to the announcement today by the Minister of the Environment. It represents with the issuance of the consultation plan a very major step forward for Canada. It invites consultation from industry, from the provinces
and from interested parties across the country to devise a program that is consistent with the priority we attach to the environment and economic development in the country as well.
In my own consultations with people across the country, it was requested very specifically that at this particular juncture there be intensive consultation with people across the nation, particlarly provinces, industry, trade unions and such.
So while the minister gave the outlines of what I believe will be major advances in the protection of the environment, he is actively inviting the participation of provinces and other interested parties. I do not know why that would offend my hon. friend because it is perfectly consistent with co-operative federalism.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people are calling for action on the environment. If this document has any meaning, why is it filled with weasel words like: "the government will consider, move toward, option, possibility"?
Why, after being in office for five years and having a chance to take concrete action, has it done nothing more than bring forward what itself calls a framework for discussion in which almost nowhere in it is there any pledge of concrete government action? Why is it that the document is filled instead of with pledges of action with nothing more than a series of wishy-washy questions?


Right Hon.. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if at this moment the document had been filled with announcements that we are going to do such and such a thing tomorrow, then my hon. friend would have been criticizing the government for not consulting in advance with the provinces and with industry. So with the-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You had five years.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Well, my hon. friend says five years. In that period of time Prime Minister Brundtland, chairman of the Brundtland Commission for the United Nations indicated publicly that Canada had assumed leadership in the world in protection of the environment, and Foreign Minister Shevardnadze said in Moscow in December that Canada was the first nation to place the environment on the international agenda and that the country deserved congratulations for its leadership.
March 29, 1990

The Minister of the Environment today deserves the congratulations of this House for what he is doing in Montreal.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Brundtland report came out three years ago. I am sure that Madam Brundtland would not have anything too good to say about this government today.
An example of the kinds of empty questions in this discussion paper is the one in which the government asks whether it should emphasize compliance for enforcement of environmental laws. Does that question have to be asked? Why does the government have any doubt as to whether it should enforce its own environmental laws on something so important as the future existence of this planet?

Mr. Speaker, why does this document just raise questions about the environment, when the Canadian people think that the government should rather give answers and do more to implement them? Why this lack of action on the environment?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend says that Madam Brundtland would not have anything nice to say about the government now. Last week, in Vancouver, she said that the Government of Canada was providing genuine world leadership on the environment.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: She was defeated, also.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Now the House leader of the Liberal Party says no wonder Mrs. Brundtland was defeated. What an awful thing to say about one of the finest people serving in world politics. What a disgraceful thing to say about one of the leading environmentalists in the world. Why can't you accept the fact that Mrs. Brundtland thinks the government and the people of Canada are assuming dignified world leadership on the environment and be proud of it?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, one can understand the desperate efforts by the Prime
Oral Questions
Minister to climb up from his 17 per cent level in the public opinion polls.
My question is directed to the Minister of the Environment, and in his absence, we will be very grateful to whoever wishes to deal with it. In the same report, published today by the Minister of the Environment, there is a promise to introduce a bill on environmental assessment soon which is, by the way, a promise made by the Progressive Conservative Party in 1984.
Can the minister assure Canadians that such legislation will not be weaker than the regulations passed by the Liberal government in 1984 and reinforced by three separate court decisions since?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, it would hardly be possible to produce anything that would be much weaker than what the previous government had produced.
Of course, there is going to be legislation and, of course, there is going to be an environmental action plan, but the action that needs to be taken will affect every Canadian and it will affect the lifestyles of most Canadians.
Therefore, it is critically important that everybody gets drawn into the debate before this kind of critical action is taken. What the minister has done today is announce the four-point action plan that will permit us to consult throughout the country until fall. It is clearly laid out what the results of this exercise are going to be. Of course, we hope that the opposition will engage itself as well with other Canadians in developing just the right kind of legislation.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of Transport and it flows from a statement in the same report in which belief is expressed in the government supporting and enforcing existing laws.
In light of the fact that two weeks and more have gone by since his approval has been struck down by the Federal Court on the Oldman Dam, will the Minister of Transport indicate when he will enforce the law that he has, do the job that he is expected to do by Canadians, in stopping the construction of the dam on the Oldman River?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, naturally that was a very important legal decision.

March 29, 1990
Oral Questions
There are implications as to safety and the government is considering the action that should be taken. As soon as we have reached a decision we will announce it.



Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. For more than a year, the government has been talking about the environment and has made all kinds of promises. Last year, a five-year plan was mentioned including specific objectives, an agenda, and promises of funding. Today, what we get is just another working paper with a lot of old ideas. My question is this: Where is the political will that is needed to get things moving on environmental issues?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, to answer my honorable friend, quite a bit has been achieved in this area. I am thinking of international agreements concluded by this government. For instance, we were the first country at the Vienna Convention to ratify an agreement on protecting the ozone layer, and we concluded an agreement with the Soviet Union on November 1989. There have been federal-provincial agreements, the environmental protection legislation passed in June 1988, and in 1989 the regulations to eliminate lead in gasoline.

Water quality initiatives: strengthening and a revision of the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Act in November, 1987, in June 1988, the provision of a five-year, $110 million federal program to clean up and protect the St. Lawrence River. An announcement of a $125 million Great Lakes action plan. Sulphur dioxide emissions under acid rain already reduced by 40 per cent in Canada. Technology development and pollution abatement initiatives.
I think probably this characterizes it best of all. Since 1984, apart from all of the other areas, six new national parks have been announced in Canada, including South Moresby. We are very much committed to sustainable development and the protection of the environment, and our record clearly illustrates that.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. I would remind this House as well that the record also indicates that the Prime Minister and his government voted against completing the national parks system by the year 2000 as was proposed in this House.
In today's watered down frame work for a discussion paper, the government says: "We cannot afford the costly react and cure approach to dealing with environmental problems, nor can we any longer afford to ignore environmental considerations in properly assessing our economic performance."
The government promised a Canadian environmental assessment act during the last election and in the Throne Speech. First it was going to be tabled last summer, then it was going to be last fall. Now it is spring and there is no environmental assessment act. As a result of the government's inaction, projects like the Oldman Dam and Rafferty-Alameda are being decided by the courts rather than by the environmental policies set by this government.
Will the government commit today to the tabling of a strong Canada environment assessment act?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, because of the high priority given to the EARP reform, the government plans to table legislation later this spring rather than waiting until the release of the Green Plan in the fall, and I think that will be welcome news to my hon. friend.
Given my hon. friend's interest in the environment, I am somewhat disappointed that in her blanket criticism she tends to completely dismiss and neglect things, such as the signing in 1984 of five year forestry agreements with over $1 billion in committed funds, making this the largest environmental rehabilitation program in Canadian history; the beginning of a clean-up program for the Sydney tar ponds chemical dump site, which will cost $34 million over the first five years; the signature in 1988 of an agreement to clean up Halifax harbour at a cost of $196 million; a $4.5 million program to clean up the Hamilton Harbour Windermere Basin; and the Fraser River Estuary Management Program.
Mr. Speaker, only time prevents me from reading a much more extensive list which I thought my hon. friend would applaud.
March 29, 1990


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, in the government's own framework for discussion on the environment, which is not a plan and which does not contain any concrete ideas or financial commitments, the government itself outlined some of the serious problems that are currently devastating the environment in Canada.
We are the heaviest users of energy on a per capita basis. Canadians are the world's fourth-largest producers of carbon dioxide on a per capita basis. I repeat that the government itself says: "We cannot afford the costly react and cure approach".
What Canadians want to see is a real plan with real teeth and a real timetable. I ask the Prime Minister again to give us that timetable. A year of discussion and then some action in the future is not a timetable. The environment is a concern. I ask the Prime Minister to commit to Canadians a real agenda for action. That is leadership.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to commit to my hon. friend that, indeed, following consultation with the provinces there will be a real environmental agenda for action. I expect that in turn my hon. friend will commit to the full the unreserved and unalloyed support of the New Democratic Party for that program when it is introduced into the House of Commons.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Today, the Canadian bank rate rose more than 13 basis points to 13.51 per cent. That is the highest level since the Prime Minister and his government were sworn in in September of 1984.
The spread between Canadian and U.S. rates remains above 5 per cent, which is far higher than the historical average of 2 per cent.
The Prime Minister himself predicted within a few days of the February 20 budget that interest rates would go down. That was the Prime Minister's prediction. In fact, interest rates have continued alarmingly to go up.
My question for the Prime Minister is simple. Why?
Oral Questions


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the very simple answer is that we want to avoid the problems of 1980 and 1982, when we saw interest rates under the government that he supported at 20 per cent to 25 per cent. That was a lesson-a very, very tough one-for everybody across this country. It is a lesson from which we must learn. It is a lesson that we do not want to see repeated.
It means that we must get inflation under control. That requires us to continue doing the things that we are doing, whether it is through monetary policy or through budgetary policy, to ensure that we get the level of inflation under control and not sweep it under the carpet as his government did. We must face it head on. That is the way we will get lower interest rates. That is the way we will get lower interest rates on a much more permanent basis. That is the way we are going to have a healthier economy in Canada.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House want the Prime Minister to come out from underneath the carpet and answer the question.
When the February 20 budget was brought down, which budget included dramatic cuts to fundamental programs like health care and education, as well as a transfer of the federal debt on to the backs of the provinces, we were told that this pain was worth bearing because, in the words of the Prime Minister, interest rates would come down shortly. Interest rates are at their highest level since this party came to power in September of 1984, and are at the highest levels since the recession of 1982.
Given that the interest rate policy is not working and given that the Prime Minister's prediction has been shown to be false, is the Prime Minister now considering withdrawing those cuts in health and education spending across Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should ask himself what caused the recession of 1981-82. The high interest rates were caused by the high inflation of the government that he supported at that time. That is precisely why we are doing this.
What is absolutely and totally puzzling about the hon. member's question is that he says what we want to do now is increase government spending, so that we can increase inflation, and so that we can increase interest rates. He has absolutely no idea what he is talking about

March 29, 1990
Oral Questions
when he suggests what we should be doing with monetary policy in this country.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries.
Yesterday, National Sea Products pulled the plug on the Canso fish plant four days early. Even John Buchanan expected a rescue plan after the minister's flying visit and fine words in February.
Now that the Canso fish plant is closed where is the rescue plan?
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is talking about rescue. I went down there. I put my hands over the water and the fish did not show up.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Bernard Valcourt: Liberals want Atlantic Canadians to believe that we can put fish back in the water. If the Liberal member can teach me how to put fish back in the water, then please tell me how.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, that just goes to show you the seriousness with which this minister takes the problem of the crisis in the Atlantic fishery. Rather than give us concrete answers, he continues to play hide and seek with the lives of the fish plant workers in Atlantic Canada.
When is he going to end this uncertainty? When will he tell the people of Canso what plans the government has to secure their future?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, he claims that I am toying with the issue in Atlantic Canada. The question-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Bernard Valcourt: I wish they would shut up!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You're a joker.


Bernard Valcourt: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
The members are treating the problems in the Atlantic fishery as if it were something that we could solve overnight and that politicians can solve just like this. It is not as easy as that.
In the last three weeks I have been talking to people in the industry. I have been talking to people in the provincial governments in Atlantic Canada. We are working on a plan.
I will not lie to the people of Canso and tell them that I have a solution that will bring everyone into the plant, but I can tell them something. We are working on it.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister, on behalf of the people of Chambly and Saint-Basile-le-Grand. How can he endorse the Environment Minister's green plan, knowing that on his two visits to my riding, he promised the people of Chambly and Saint-Basile-le-Grand that he would take immediate action to protect the environment? What is his answer to the people of Quebec, who say that this government is all talk and no action?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, considering the importance of the environment in Quebec and across this country, I am astonished at the hon. member's rather negative reaction to the release of this extremely important and fundamental document, a document that is indispensable for intensive consultation with the government of Quebec if we are to develop joint policies that will provide beneficial solutions, for the riding of Chambly as well as for British Columbia and for the whole country. Imagine my astonishment when I hear an hon. member complaining when a vitally important document is tabled recommending consultation with the public. We intend to use the results of this consultation to take what I believe will be historic action to protect the environment in this country.

March 29, 1990


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister went along Highway 116 in my riding, he might have seen the PCBs that are still stored at Saint-Basile-le-Grand. He might have seen the Richelieu River which is still polluted. During the past two election campaigns they promised to take action to protect the environment but nothing was done.
Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister is this: Will his government act today to levy a green tax and settle the issue of PCB storage, and will it do something about the issue of drinking water and the use of pesticides? Those are issues that concern my riding.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises some very important issues that concern his riding, but I may remind him that the answer to his question should not come from the Parliament of Canada but from the Quebec National Assembly.


Some hon. members:: Really?


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is where the hon. member should get his answer.


An hon. member:: Not true!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Regarding the hon. member's question, I already gave his leader an impressive list of what the Parliament of Canada has done to protect the environment since 1984. The document tabled today is an invitation to the provinces, unions, industry and the Parliament of Canada to co-operate and consult, with a view to promoting protection of the environment. Normally, the hon. member would be on his feet to applaud such a noble cause!


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Willie Littlechild (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State.
As the minister knows, there has been considerable concern expressed nationally about funding cuts to native communications programs. Can the Secretary of
Oral Questions
State confirm that additional funds will be provided to essential native communications societies?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, cuts to any program are very difficult. I have had an opportunity over the last year or two to come to know even better how effective a job all of these societies are doing for the community.
We established a task force that is well in place which is reviewing all of the options that may be available to help these societies continue their growth and maturity.
I want to indicate that I am particularly pleased that the minister for the Northwest Territories, Titus Allool-oo, came to visit me. He brought forward an idea in which his government will be participating with us. I have agreed to the suggestion for the partnership.
I am encouraging other governments to get involved in partnerships to also work with native communications.
I might say that the minister had these words to say yesterday: "The Secretary of State can be credited with being responsive to the needs expressed by the people of the Northwest Territories and for seeking avenues to accommodate the legitimate needs that have been expressed".


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation. There is no smoke without a fire. In all likelihood, the Outaouais area will be severely affected by Canada Post's decision to close three mail sorting centres in Hull, Aylmer and Gatineau. Can the minister confirm these closures which would transfer services to Ottawa, thus resulting in the loss or transfer of about 100 employees?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with admonitions from this House when the Crown corporation Canada Post was created, and with the views of the hon. member's party as they were articulated, for example, by the member for Papineau, it

March 29, 1990
Oral Questions
is our policy not to interfere with the management of the Post Office as it seeks to achieve efficiencies on behalf of its customers and taxpayers.
However, I will make the hon. member's representation to management so that they might bear it in mind as they balance the interests of Canadian taxpayers, users of the Post Office and, of course, their employees.


Gilles Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, following the closing of Northern Telecom, the closing of Boiseries de L'Outaouais, the popular Transport Canada file and, more recently, the cuts at the NCC, can the minister assure me on behalf of the people I represent that he will take into consideration all these unfair actions before making any decision relative to Canada Post?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, over the last five years, but in particular over the last year, 250,000 new jobs have been created in Canada as a result of the policies of this government. These policies have stressed deregulation and the fact that we expect industry to operate in the most efficient manner possible, including Crown corporations such as Canada Post. All of these activities have resulted in an economy that surprises people by its buoyancy. From that comes jobs.
Every year in Canada three to four million people change jobs. The hon. member is concerned, and rightfully so, about the jobs in his constituency, as is this government. I can assure him that if the policies of this government are allowed to be implemented by a co-operative House of Commons and Senate, then those jobs will be created.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Coalition on Multicultural-ism representing seven million Canadians has come to Ottawa to insist that the government reinstate heritage language funding for 150,000 children and pretty close to
6,000	teachers.
The Prime Minister and most senior ministers have refused to meet this group. That shows the absolute lack
of commitment to our cultural communities by this Tory government.
When is the Prime Minister going to insist on the reinstatement of heritage language funding?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has frequently met with members of the cultural communities. Indeed, on his recent trip to Toronto he had another opportunity to be with the members of the communities.
I had the opportunity to meet with the coalition today at lunch. I am also advised that the Minister of Employment and Immigration met with the group today.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: We are partners as far as we are concerned. We are very heavily involved in helping promote their view of a multicultural society. We have a very vigorous program.
As I said previously, that member should be embarrassed even asking the question, considering how little her government ever did for multiculturalism in this country.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I am in no way embarrassed, because I do not put up a $6 million facade and cut a $4 million program.

Could the Minister explain to Canadians what the point is of founding a heritage language institute when the schools will be closed? There won't be any teachers. Who is going to use this centre? Isn't this just one more example of the Tories' lack of commitment to our cultural communities?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the commitment of this government is very firm. We have been giving expression to that commitment with a structural and a legislative base, as well as with a Canadian multiculturalism act. A new department of multiculturalism and citizenship is in the process of being formed. There is a Canadian Heritage Languages Institute with headquarters in Edmonton, as well as a race relations foundation being established. These are

important instruments which cannot be altered in the future on a whim.
I might add that we have had budgetary cuts. They are very difficult because I realize how important the activities of these communities are.
We should not trivialize their activities because they are mainstream now. It is important for all of us to recognize that the whole of society should be participating in their growth and development.
This year multiculturalism will have the same amount of funding it had last year, in addition to the $24 million for the endowment for race relations. The areas of heritage cultures and languages are very important. Six million dollars will be allocated to those areas. There will be more money for community support, race relations and cross-cultural understanding.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


THE ECONOMY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
He will be aware of the very sad, disappointing and serious news that we received at two o'clock that, once again, the bank rate has increased to its highest levels since those devastating days back in 1982.
The Prime Minister will know that the prime rate is now coming perilously close to the psychological 15 per cent level beyond which the confidence in the Government of Canada's monetary policy will completely collapse.
How long do Canadians have to wait, as interest rates creep up week after week, before the government plans to act?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. gentleman that we are committed to bringing interest rates down, but we want to bring them down in a way that will ensure they will stay down.
Even though people talk about a recession, our economy still has tremendous pressures underneath it which
Oral Questions
are causing the dollar and interest rates to go up. We are hopeful that with our fiscal policy, together with our monetary policy we will soon come to terms with that problem. We are tackling it in the only good way that there is today.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister talks about upward pressure in terms of inflation. I want to ask the Prime Minister the following question.
The Governor of the Bank of Canada has been asking Canadians to tighten their belts. He will know that a number of his own back-benchers have been asking the government why on earth it would give the Governor of the Bank of Canada annual increases which exceed what most Canadians make on an annual basis-now up to the $200,000 plus level.
Does the Prime Minister support giving raises to the Governor of the Bank of Canada between 12 per cent and 20 per cent on an annual basis? Is this the kind of signal he wants to send to the people of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe a comment like that from a gentleman with whom I shared prayers at Prayer Breakfast this morning.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: My understanding is that for an extended period of time, because of the personal reasons of the previous occupant of the position, there had been a disinclination to accept standard increases. As a result, when this matter was reviewed by the Bums Commission on Executive Compensation and by other advisors, it was pointed out that there was a very considerable disparity between the range of salaries of the Governor of the Bank of Canada and comparable office holders, both in the private and public sectors.
In fairness, I point out to my hon. friend that whatever numbers he comes up with-and I do not have them in front of me-there was a substantial amount of catchup, inasmuch as that particular range had been frozen for an extended period of time, quite unfairly to the office holder as it turned out, and quite unfairly in comparison with other comparable jobs in the public sector.

March 29, 1990
Oral Questions INCOME TAX


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue.
Given the fact that recent media articles and reports have indicated that our tax system is getting more complex and that in fact increasing numbers of Canadians are now relying on professional tax preparers, despite the claims of tax reform, could the minister explain why Canadians are apparently finding it more difficult to file income tax returns?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, indications thus far suggest the exact opposite. In fact, as of this week we have already processed some 2.3 million returns as compared to 1.1 million returns last year. This suggests that Canadians are finding the system simpler to comply with and the administration of the department more efficient.
As I pointed out last week to the critic from the New Democratic Party, there has been no substantial increases in outside tax preparers. Preliminary estimates at this stage indicate that no increase for this year is taking place.
The bottom line to me is quite evident. Thx reform is working. It is fairer. It is simpler. It benefits all Canadians.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister answered the previous question he reminded me of the divine teaching that states when nothing else works call upon the help of the Lord.
Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Finance but I see that he has left. I will direct my question to the Prime Minister.
Business has called the GST a nightmare. Consumers call it a travesty, a travesty because it taxes homes and utilities. It taxes natural gas, fuel oil and electricity. It will add $60 of cost to a household in Windsor; $84 to a household in Sudbury; and $102 to a household in Regina.
Does the Prime Minister recognize that home heat is a necessity? Does he recognize that home utilities are not a luxury? Will the Prime Minister withdraw this regressive tax-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has put several questions.


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to ask the hon. member to go back to the technical papers. Again he is presenting a picture which has nothing to do with the tax reform we are introducing.
He fails to understand that together with the reform comes a credit system which will ensure that lower-income people are fully protected from the impact of our taxes.
He fails to understand that the present inputs paid by various companies which provide the services he was referring to will be able to deduct the present tax which is a silent killer of jobs.
When he goes around telling Canadians about his conception of a disaster he should make the effort to inform them honestly.


Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, my questiQn was just to inform them of the reality in the taxation system.
My supplementary question is directed to the same minister. Yesterday in the House the minister said: "John Bulloch agrees that we should be moving away from the existing sales tax". In fact, what Mr. Bulloch said yesterday was that the GST chaos will disadvantage small independent retailers, calling it an impossible situation and stating that business will be absolutely furious and frustrated.
Will the minister agree with the 400,000 members of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business that the GST is a nightmare, not workable, places small retailers at a disadvantage and should be withdrawn?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman reads John Bulloch he should read him throughout. He will find out that Mr. Bulloch agrees with the tax.
What he does not agree with is the fact that we have not been able to provide a national sales tax, not because we failed to try, we are still working on that.
March 29, 1990

He talks about 11 different rates in Canada. Canadians do not live at once in 10 different provinces. They may have to tackle two rates.
Underlying these remarks is a feeling that our small business community is unable to adapt to reform. I come from a small business family. I can tell you that they can very well adapt to these kinds of reforms.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York Centre, a single question.


WAR CRIMINALS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Yesterday I asked the minister about Canadian efforts to see justice done in the case of SS Officer Wilhelm Mohnke who lives in West Germany and who according to available eye witnesses murdered dozens of Canadian POWs after Normandy.
The minister said that there was an ongoing investigation in her department and that Canada had been in touch with West Germany. It now appears that West Germany closed its file on this matter in 1976 and that Canada has never asked that the file be reopened.
I want to ask the minister what she was talking about yesterday. Is she prepared to make representations needed to the West German government to take Canada's grievance seriously?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member would know better than I what occurred between 1976 and 1984 on this file, because I believe he had some responsibility for it.
I will simply repeat what I said yesterday in the House, which is that there is an ongoing investigation in Canada and appropriate efforts are being made to bring the results of that investigation to the West German authorities.
Business of the House


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put the usual Thursday afternoon question to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and ask him about his plans for the business of the House. Second, I have a very important question I would like the government to answer, and I see the Prime Minister is in the House. I would be grateful for his attention.
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, but it also concerns the Prime Minister. We have not had a deputy speaker of the House for nearly a month and I would like to ask the government what it intends to do about filling this position and what the procedure will be. Will there be an election at large, as is the case for the Speaker or are there other procedures? Why the delay? Why don't we have a deputy speaker?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow will be an opposition day. Monday will be the last day of debate on second reading of Bill C-65, the borrowing authority bill. Tuesday we start the report stage of Bill C-62, the GST bill. As for the rest of the week, we shall see.

In terms of the question respecting the Deputy Speaker, it will be happening very soon and it will be done in the way prescribed in the McGrath commission report. As we know, the recommendation was that the position of Speaker be elected and the other positions be appointed in the traditional manner. That will happen and happen very soon.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Orders also say "forthwith". That means immediately. We have been very patient with the government. They know that, and I think they will recognize that we have accepted once in the absence of Mr. Speaker that the replacement for the Speaker not be the Deputy Speaker. That was a concession the opposition made.
We will not continue to wait until the government makes up its mind as to how we are going to cope with

March 29, 1990
Speaker's Ruling
that problem. It may be a difficult solution to a difficult problem. Why is the government not giving us a solution to the problem? Just put someone up for election and then we will proceed as we usually do.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, that will happen forthwith. I am not sure why the hon. member is so exercised. If someone should be exercised perhaps the present occupants of the chair should be, bearing in mind their numbers, and we appreciate that.
The House leader of the Liberal Party will recognize that there is no Machiavellian scheme afoot to try to make life miserable for the opposition or any other such thing. There is in fact a busy schedule and very soon the concerns of the hon. member will be met.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I could say to the hon. House leader that the sooner the better.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, on the subject of House business, I should also like to ask the government House leader about Bill C-61, an amendment to the Divorce Act, which was of great interest to the former Minister of Justice and is of great interest to me as well.
The legislation has now been through committee and it has been reported. I wonder if the minister might be prepared to call it at an early date.


Harvie Andre: Indeed I have a considerable list of important legislation including that, which I am most anxious to get before the House and completed and in place. I hope he will make representations to his colleagues, the House leader and the deputy House leader of the Liberal Party, as well as the New Democrats, so we might reach some agreement between us on how to proceed in an expeditious and effective fashion.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I just heard the Minister of Transport saying: "I thought you were the House leader for the Liberals". I am, Mr. Speaker. I want to remind the former House leader that in those days at least we knew where we were going. Now we do not.
We were told this week that Bill C-26 would be called on Friday. Now we learn at 3.05 p.m. that it is not going to be Bill C-26; it is going to be an opposition day. We cannot operate this House in that manner. Either this House leader gets his act together and tells us what the agenda is for the next week, or he tells us every day what the business of the House will be the next day. That way we might at least have some knowledge of what we are
going to be looking at. I find it difficult to have a negotiating period on Tuesdays and have it changed on Thursdays.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of sympathy for that. I realize that when people make plans for Fridays, as we did last week, and have those changed at the last minute-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That was not my fault; that was your own doing.


Harvie Andre: The hon. member is correct in saying that it was not his fault. This is not some sort of get even situation. It is simply a case of being unable to get assurances that in fact we would be able to proceed expeditiously with that bill. Had we had those assurances, we could do it, but without those assurances we are in a situation of again having to ask people to break their plans, to cancel engagements, to come back and so on to be here in order not to be bush-whacked, as it were, by dilatory motions and so on.
I regret that we have to do it that way. I again say that it is not my preference. I would much rather we sat down and negotiated a situation, and people kept to their word. We have not been able to reach that stage. I am willing to continue to try and I think the hon. member is. Between the two of us, maybe we can convince the third party to co-operate, and we could all serve our country a lot more effectively.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: On February 12, 1990, the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre rose claiming that a contempt of Parliament may have been committed. The hon. member explained that in its budget of April 27, 1989 the government announced the elimination of the "at and east" grain and flour subsidy program, effective July 15, 1989.
The cancellation of this program took place prior to the adoption of any legislation by Parliament, which would have repealed Section 281 of the Railway Act, the statute which first established this program.
This action, the hon. member contends, is a contempt of Parliament and impedes the House from giving proper consideration to the bill presently before it at second
March 29, 1990

reading, since the proposed objective of the bill is already a fait accompli.

The next day, the Chair heard further argument on this point and wishes to thank the hon. members for Kingston and the Islands, Regina-Lumsden and Peace River who made perceptive and eloquent interventions. The Chair reserved on the matter and stated it would come back at a later date to render its decision. The Chair is now prepared to deliver that decision.

Basically the issue which the Chair must decide is whether or not the government has committed a contempt of Parliament by eliminating the "at and east" program, prior to the adoption of Bill C-26, an act to amend the Railway Act (grain and flour subsidies). The proposed legislation seeks to amend section 281 of the Railway Act, which would allow the railways to charge commercial rates, effective July 16, 1989.
The removal of the "at and east" program was part of the budget measures announced by the government on April 27, 1989. As all hon. members realize, budgets do not deal only with the raising of revenues. They also enunciate the fiscal, economic and even social policies of the government. The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre did make a distinction between retroactive tax legislation emanating from a budget and legislation proposing to end a specific program.
With regard to the "at and east" program, the general practices of the House relating to budgets appear to have been applied. An announcement was included in the budget statement, the government made it effective shortly thereafter, and enabling legislation, namely Bill C-26, was introduced. Bill C-26 was read a first time on June 16,1989 and has been debated at second reading on February 12 and on February 20, 1990.
The essence of the matter raised by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre is that the government announced May 4, 1989: "That the 'at and east' program
Speaker's Ruling
would be eliminated effective July 15, 1989," and that today, some eight months later, Parliament has not yet passed the legislation to this effect.

In his presentation, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands recalled at some length similar interventions made in 1971 by then-members of the opposition who were vigorously protesting the withholding of wheat payments in anticipation of the repeal of the Temporary Reserves Act which provided for such payments. The hon. member for Regina-Lumsden reminded the House of the eventual legal outcome of that 1971 situation in the Federal Court of Canada.

The Chair has been struck by the parallels between the 1971 wheat payment controversy and the situation before us relating to the "at and east" program. Indeed Speaker Lamoureux's decision is as illuminating today as it was then, for then as now the issue of whether the government is in violation of the law is not a question for the Chair to decide.
As Speaker Lamoureux explained on September 13, 1971, at page 7740 of Hansard'.
Whether the government has an obligation under the terms of the existing law to make certain payments is not a question for the Chair to decide.
The crux of the whole matter, as I understand it, is that the government is withholding payments authorized by an existing statute until a new statute has been adopted. Either what the government is doing is or is not contemplated, or anticipated, or authorized by the existing statute. Its action may well be subject to censure, but that would be a decision for the House to take.
Whether it is in order to use this method to induce the adoption of alternative government legislation can again be the subject of debate, but I suggest that this should not be done within the framework of the debate on a question of privilege.
In assessing the case before us today, the Chair must be solely concerned with the issue of whether or not the action of the government constitutes a contempt of Parliament by impeding the House from properly considering Bill C-26. A careful review of the situation leads me to conclude that the termination of the program was an administrative decision made by the executive.

March 29, 1990
Government Orders
The legality of such a decision is another question, but the decision of the government as such does not in any way impede the House from considering Bill C-26.

Nevertheless, that is not to say that this is a simple matter. The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre has raised an issue of continuing concern: namely the implications of the practice whereby an initiative is implemented or a program terminated prior to the passage by Parliament of enabling legislation.

There can be little doubt that in having recourse to this approach a government must be ever mindful that Parliament makes the ultimate decision on the legislation before it. I have noted in the correspondence provided to me by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre that the Ministry of Transport has been careful to advise the railway companies of the consequences if Parliament chooses not to approve this legislation and stresses the fact that it is still before the House.
The Chair agrees with the ruling of Speaker Lamou-reux in 1971 and therefore finds that this case does not fall within the ambit of privilege or contempt. The hon. member may well have a founded grievance in law, which he may wish to pursue in another place.
I commend the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre for drawing this important issue to the attention of the Chair and of the House. I also want to compliment him on the succinct and careful argument that he presented. I thank all other hon. members who participated in the decision for their contributions.
He *	*


POINT OF ORDER
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the House agreed to strike a committee to look into the proposals by Premier McKenna. Time is very critical. I wonder if I could ask the government House leader whether the committee looking into Premier McKenna's proposals has been struck, when it will meet, and whether there have been consultations regarding the person who will chair that committee.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, there have been some casual consultations.
According to the motion, as the hon. member will know, that committee will be struck by the striking committee of this House, which I understand will be meeting this afternoon to make those decisions and then a chairman will be elected from among those. Those conversations can be had there frankly with the representatives of each party in the same manner as we have done for any other committees of this House.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I believe the order adopted by this House on Tuesday specifies that within three days the striking committee must report. It is only the second day today, so I take it we have another day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre:
That in relation to Bill C-65, an Act to provide Borrowing Authority, not more than one additional day shall be alloted to the further consideration of the second reading stage and,
That 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on such day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary in order to dispose of the second reading stage shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
Gilles Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House today, Bill C-65, would authorize the Conservative government to borrow $25 billion. That is 25 thousand million we are being asked to put in the hands of some totally irresponsible people. Since the last election in 1988, this government has acted totally irresponsibly, first of all on the subject of unemployment insurance; second, on VIA Rail; third, on the GST they are getting ready to impose on Canadians. Those are some of the reasons why we in the Liberal Party cannot afford to let this government go to the financial markets for $25 billion.
March 29, 1990

I truly deplore the attitude of this government which seems to be running our country on an ad hoc basis. They have completely lost control of public spending, Mr. Speaker. They are cutting right, left and centre, and they are totally oblivious to the impact of these cuts. They want to introduce new taxes without prior agreement with the provinces. They want to impose a new tax across Canada while ignoring our information on the market, inflation, and the new costs this will entail for Canadian citizens. Mr. Speaker, when a government has only 17 per cent of public support, it should be more anxious to consult, especially with the official opposition and in fact with the whole opposition.
Mr. Speaker, the government will very shortly impose closure on this bill as it has been doing recently on a number of bills. The government seems to want to muzzle the opposition because it no longer knows what it is doing.
Mr. Speaker, let me give you a few examples. Near the National Capital region, in my riding, on the other side of the Ottawa River, only a year ago Northern Telecom was closed. This, of course, was blamed on free trade.
Just recently, we learned that Catelli would continue operations in Montreal provided employees accepted large wage cuts. Otherwise, it would shut down and go to the United States. Nearer here, Les Placages de I'Ou-taouais just signed a new collective agreement yesterday or the day before allowing the company to hire nonunionized workers for $6 an hour to replace employees who used to earn $10 an hour. They said in fact, "Take it or we close down!" Mr. Speaker, is that what the Prime Minister means when he tells us that 200,000 jobs were created last year, while in the National Capital Region and especially in our area, they boast about cutting the Public Service by 15 per cent over the last four years, they almost boast about closing down businesses-
I just spoke about Northern Telecom. I could tell you about Les Boiseries de I'Outaouais; the Federal Business Development Bank refused to lend it money to keep it going. We could talk about the Museum of Civilization for which the government, through the National Capital Commission, last year, just a few months ago, announced
Government Orders
major cuts. That project, including the fountains costing $500,000, has still not been finished.
We remember all the patronage surrounding the construction of the Museum of Civilization, which originally was to cost $80 million and is now up to $260 million. That is where we should look, instead of imposing new taxes, continually sticking it to Canadians and making them bear the burden of mismanagement. That is where we should look!
The other day, I was examining the famous case of Transport Canada, and I want to look into it more closely soon. Last year the federal government decided to renew the lease at Place de Ville owned by Campeau Corporation. We know it will have to pay to remove the asbestos inside this building. The costs are estimated at some $100 million. A few weeks ago I was told that, should the government stay in its current location in Place de Ville where it faces major expenditures, after 20 years it will have paid over $900 million more than if it had awarded the contract last year to the lowest bidder who happened to be from the Outaouais. This is another example of mismanagement by this government that operates from day to day.
There were recent reports on CKCH, a local radio station, and in Le Droit that Canada Post was about to make major cuts in the Outaouais side of the National Capital Region and to eliminate sorting jobs in Hull, Aylmer and Gatineau. Cutting jobs left and right will not lead to economic recovery.
We, in the Liberal opposition, have given the government suggestions we consider realistic. There is a 5 per cent gap between the current interest rates set by the Bank of Canada and the American rates. How can Canadian businesses be competitive when our interest rates are so high and when the consumer always ends up paying for the damage?
Mr. Speaker, I believe the Opposition has presented you and the Government with solutions to try and reduce the current economic trend that is leading inevitably to a recession.
The government today is asking for authority to borrow $ 25 billion, which is 25 thousand million, Mr. Speaker! In order to do what? To go on managing on a daily basis as they are now doing, by restricting debate

March 29, 1990
Government Orders
because it is quite possible that in a few moments we will be denied the opportunity to further discuss the matter.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that will not work. The Liberal Opposition no longer can help or let this government rush us along the road to recession and increased inflation with the coming imposition of the For all those reasons and more, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Opposition will flatly refuse to endorse any measure this government intends to force upon the Canadian people.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, and I insist on this because according to recent polls-and as we know public opinion polls, in Canada are accurate to a few percentage points-hardly 17 per cent of the Canadian people now approve of this government. Mr. Speaker, I believe this government is routed. This government whom the people no longer trust to lead them is preparing once more to introduce new taxes under the pretext of reducing the debt, reducing the deficit.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the Canadian people just as the Official Opposition no longer believe in this government's actions, and we cannot support Bill C-65 which would grant this government authority to borrow $ 25 billion.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I understand that I am debating the time allocation motion rather than Bill C-65 itself. The object of this time allocation motion is to limit debate on a bill that authorizes the government to borrow $25.5 billion on the credit of the people of Canada at interest rates that as of today have increased substantially.
My concern is that this government is acting in a more and more authoritarian manner and is dealing with this House of Commons in a more and more rigorous and dictatorial manner by ramming each and every piece of legislation through this House. As our House leader pointed out this morning, in the last 11 months this government has used closure or time allocation 15 times, more than any previous time in history. Since its term in office in the last six years it has used closure 30 times.
This government is abusing the House of Commons and abusing the rights and privileges of the members of the House of Commons by denying them the right to debate, in particular, the most important legislation
coming into this House. This piece of legislation is extremely important.
The government is asking the opposition to give it carte blanche to borrow something like $25.5 billion on the credit of the people of Canada. That simply cannot be done after a mere four hours debate in the House of Commons.
The government has not been entirely honest with the members of this House as to what this money is going to be spent on.
I recall that when I served in another legislature, in a previous life, that it was almost natural for the government to bring in a borrowing authority bill each year. It would give it the right to borrow $1 billion, $2 billion or $3 billion and did not provide even a schedule of the government's borrowing plans and what it planned to spend this money on. We certainly have not seen a schedule tabled in the House as a part of this bill. When we hear the Conservative members speak on this piece of legislation, we do not hear anything as to what the government's plans are in respect of the $25.5 billion that it is borrowing under the authority granted in this bill.
This is the highest level of borrowing authority ever sought from the House of Commons by any government. This is a government that makes a pretence of being fiscally responsible and of being responsible with the public's money. Yet, here it is, on the floor of the House, borrowing the greatest amount that any government has ever come to the House of Commons to seek authority to borrow, without providing a shred of useful information to the members of the House and to the people of Canada, through the members of the House, as to how the money is going to be spent and what it is going to do to benefit the people of Canada.
How can the government expect us to accept a time allocation motion, after four hours debate, on a bill to borrow $25.5 billion? I just cannot understand the government's attitude in this case.
A member from Calgary stood up this morning and told us that this borrowing authority is required to handle social programs. He talked about the family allowance system, the payments to veterans, the old age pensions and supplements. But we were told by an earlier Conservative speaker that the programs of the government are already covered by tax revenues and that in fact the government has a surplus of tax revenues over

program expenditures. So, it does not really need this borrowing authority to cover the programs of government. We would like to know precisely what this $25.5 billion is for.
When I sat in that other legislature and we refused to vote in support of this type of bill, the government was forced to come in with a schedule showing what it intended to spend that money on. Elow can we grant authority to borrow $25.5 billion at the government's discretion, without knowing what the government is going to spend that money on? That is not the duty of a responsible member of Parliament, and we certainly have no intention of doing that.
This bill, which involves $25.5 billion, has been debated for four hours. That is about $6.5 billion per hour and the government is asking us to vote for it without any information at all as to how the money is to be spent. It would be irresponsible for members on this side of the House and members of the House on the opposite side to vote that much authority and credit to the government, at the expense of the people of Canada, without the government telling us what the money is going to be spent on.
We have had different stories from the other side of the House. Some have said it is for social programs. That is completely false because even the Minister of Finance said that the tax revenues of the country cover those social programs. Some have said it is for other reasons, but we simply have not got the accurate information from the government as to what it is going to be spent on. What we need is far more honesty from the government than we have had up to this point if we are going to be expected to support this motion for time allocation, which we do not, and if we are expected to support this borrowing authority, which we cannot as responsible members of the House.
The government acts along the pattern established by Ronald Reagan. It talks lean and mean; it talks about cutting back expenditures; it talks about cutting back debt; and it talks about keeping taxes in line. Yet, the government has been the worst government in history in terms of running up the debt of the country, increasing taxes, and its spending priorities. The government has been one of the worst governments in history. We cannot really be expected, when we see the government follow-
Government Orders
ing the pattern of Ronald Reagan in the United States who was supposed to be the great budget cutter and the great deficit cutter. In fact, he ran up the biggest deficits in the history of the United States, the biggest foreign debt in the history of the United States and made that country the largest debtor country on earth. The Tories here are doing precisely the same thing.
We heard one of the members who spoke this morning say that when the Tories took over the Liberals had run up $160 billion in our national debt. Various speakers on the Tory side then indicated that the debt is now $294 billion, $350 billion, and one person on the opposite side of the House even suggested that the debt is now $380 billion.
This is a government that has increased the debt in six years by more than the debt that all of the governments since Confederation ran up between 1867 and 1984. How can you call that a responsible government? How can you call that a government that is fiscally responsible and that manages the funds of the people of Canada in a fiscally responsible way? This is the government that at the last election called on the electors of Canada and suggested that it was the competent management team. When that program fell flat because people in Canada simply did not believe it, it tried another election strategy. It is definitely not the competent management team. For a team like this to come to the opposition in the House after four hour's debate and ask us to give it the authority to borrow and to spend $25.5 billion, without a shred of evidence as to what they are going to spend it on, is absolutely irresponsible on the part of the government.
I think, Mr. Speaker, you are asking me to wind up my remarks. I simply want to say that we have no intention of supporting the time allocation and that is the position of this party.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today on this time allocation motion and I am going to say categorically, shame on the government. This is the thirty-fifth time, I believe, that we have had stifled democracy. Democracy, to the gentlemen and ladies from across the way, is allowing people to speak their minds, allowing them the benefit of listening to them, and also of speaking to them and explaining to them what is happening.

March 29, 1990
Government Orders
In the eyes of the government, democracy is "do it my way, or the highway". I have news for them. Maybe it should go back to take a lesson in political science. I thought democracy was everyone having a chance to be free and to speak their minds without any fear of being stopped. This is a stifling of democracy. Why? Because the government wants permission to borrow $25.5 billion more without any explanations whatsoever. It says: "Trust me, and I will do great things for you."
The recent polls have told us that people of Canada do not believe the government. They are not trusting the government. They are wanting answers, concrete answers. What will it do with this $25.5 billion? Why does it have to borrow $25.5 billion?
Today we know the interest rates are up, and tomorrow the government will tell us: "We have a larger deficit than was expected because we did not expect the interest rates to go up so high." Why will it not allow us the benefit of judging whether or not the $25.5 billion that it wants is rooted in fact or in just plain needing the money and wanting to have a slush fund.
We all understand that borrowing authority means going to the banks and they give a credit limit. But when governments get that credit limit, it is used up. How many times have we heard of somebody not asking for a higher credit limit, especially when it is government? But tomorrow, you and I and everyone else is going to hear about how expensive it is to borrow that money. Not only is it expensive to borrow that money, but the government is going to bring in a goods and services tax which will create inflation and Mr. Crow will insist on holding tight on his high interest policy. Again, the long term debt will increase because interest rates are higher. When will the government stop hiding, come forward and do something positive for the Canadian people? Tell us, if the government really needs the $25 billion and it is legitimate, why not tell us? Why impose closure?
I have a very difficult time with closure all the time. To me, closure says that the government is anxious about its popularity. It thinks that the less we speak about it, the more quickly it will go away. Well, things do not go away. The people of Canada live today, watch television, read newspapers, and they are better educated and concerned. They will not believe the fairy tale stories any more. No one believes that we will happy tomorrow, that
the GST will solve all our problems, or, for that matter, that this past budget has solved all our problems.
Everyone understands that when the burden is passed on to the next level of government, that level has very little choice. It has either to raise taxes or to pass it down. The municipalities have no choice. They go to then-ratepayers and increase taxes. Those people understand the cost of paying their water rates and their taxes when they increase.
There are a large number of people today facing very, very difficult years ahead. They are living on fixed incomes. Municipal taxes are increasing, water rates are increasing and now heating bills will increase because the GST will impose a terribly harsh burden on hydro bills and gas bills.
Has the government listened to people when they have said: "Listen, we cannot afford to pay the 12 per cent more"? Absolutely not. The government turns a deaf ear and wants to know what it will do. Because some people own big houses and it would not want them to get a break on their heating bills. The government is very willing to give a break to the large corporations. The large corporation is going to get a tax rebate on its heating bill, but the average homeowner is not going to get that break.
If one works for a large corporation and has an expense account, one will be able to go to the Dome, rent a room, have a private party and the company will be able to claim tax input credits. Everything will be all rosy for those people because they are big business. Big business is great and we have to keep encouraging it. We have to give them all the breaks. What about the little guy at the bottom who pays the tune? He is the one who has to pay the bill and he only has two pockets. It is the municipal pocket, the income tax pocket, the GST pocket, or the sales tax pocket, but he only brings in so much money. When the pocket is empty, it is empty.
I implore members of the government to have some consideration and to take the plugs out their ears. The people of Canada are imploring them. It is their future, their country. Would they please stop stifling debate? Would they please start explaining to people? Not only does the government stifle debate, but it does not explain to people what it is doing. Be honest, be upfront. Tell people: "This is what I have to do". It may not be the best thing in the world for you, but I think the people of
March 29, 1990

Government Orders
Canada can understand that there are times when it is necessary to borrow money. But tell us why.
Mr. Speaker, if your wife went out and borrowed money, I would think that you would want to know why. You would want to know what the heck she was going to spend the money on. It would have to be good. It is only normal. I see you agreeing that, yes, she had better. Well, that is what I am saying to the government. This government has to tell me why it is borrowing that money.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 3:45 p.m., the two hours provided for the consideration of the motion now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), have expired.

Accordingly, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the 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):: I declare the motion carried.


Mr. MacWilliam:: Mr. Speaker, although I did not hear the call of my name, I understand that I was incorrectly named as one of the other members, Mr. Axworthy. I would just like it verified that I in fact stood for the count.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: You are recorded with the nays.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to inform the Elouse that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills without amendment: Bill C-38, an act to amend the Federal Court Act, the Crown Liability Act, the Supreme Court Act and other acts in consequence thereof; Bill C-56, an act to amend the Small Business Loans Act; and, Bill C-48, an act to amend the Crop Insurance Act.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House Ottawa
March 29, 1990 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Charles Gonthier, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 29th day of March, at 4.30 p.m., for the purpose of giving the Royal Assent to certain Bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Leopold H. Amyot Secretary to the Governor General


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that
the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Nunatsiaq- The economy; the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso-Fisheries; the hon. member for Gatineau-La Lievre-Tourism.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, March 28 consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-65, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We are reverting to the regular routine which is PC, Liberal, PC, Liberal, PC, NDP. The first speaker will be the hon. member for Saint-Jean.


Mr. Clement Couture (Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the government has tackled the national debt issue and will continue to introduce economic policies designed to boost Canada's economic growth.
Of course we have to admit that as a nation we live in an ever more competitive and rapidly changing world. If Canadians are to survive in such a competitive environment, they need a dynamic and flexible economy which can react quickly and efficiently to new challenges and new opportunities, a more open economy which is better atuned to markets where our best men and women can compete.
For five years now the government has been busy getting our economy ready to face international competition. Piece by piece we have erected better structures to promote economic growth and job creation.
Mr. Speaker, a number of components are already in place. The Canada-U.S. free trade agreement opens up new avenues for Canadians seeking to do business on world markets and will eventually translate into a permanent 3.5 per cent increase in economic productivity and the creation of jobs right across the country.
March 29, 1990

Deregulating the energy and transport industries and shelving the National Energy Program enabled the governement to withdraw from key sectors of our economy.
The income tax reform led to lower tax rates and the elimination of preferential treatment and tax loopholes.
It has led to higher economic production by increasing incentives to work, save and invest.
The Labour For a Development Strategy will result in improved labour force skills and flexibility. Better training helps Canadians adjust to new and changing technologies. This means better jobs for Canadian workers.
The privatization of Crown corporations helps strengthen economic efficiency and reduce the deficit. The initiatives we have taken to date have helped improve to the financial position of many Crown corporations. Replacing the existing manufacturer sales tax by the goods and services tax will strengthen competitiveness, help reduce the deficit and implement a fairer sales tax system. This is a necessary move to replace a tax that destroys jobs, makes our exports less competitive and favours foreign imports over Canadian manufactured goods, at a cost of $9 billion in production loss. It is needed in order to replace a frail and unreliable tax by a secure source of revenues.
Mr. Speaker, those initiatives will increase our competitiveness and our economic potential. They encourage private enterprise, eliminate barriers to economic growth, ensure access to markets, increase investments and efficiency. Taken together, they will raise the potential for sustainable growth by some 2 3/4 to more than 3 1/4 percent a year on average, which in turn will mean more jobs for Canadians. Over five years, this will represent a gain of some $2,500 for a family of four.
Mr. Speaker, by putting forward economic policies that strengthen our competitiveness and our economic potential, we are not only building a safe and promising future on a solid foundation, but we are also reducing the deficit, thereby giving a responsible government the financial flexibility needed to maintain our worthwile services and meet new challenges.
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni on debate. Is the hon. member going to take 10 minutes or 20 minutes?


Robert Evans Skelly: I was going to take the full 20 minutes. Were you going to permit questions?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will permit a question or a comment if the hon. member wishes.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member if he would not agree that the government has created a very serious state by its financial mismanagement of the Canadian economy. We have a request for borrowing an astronomical sum of money without any real justification because the government has failed to do anything to control its bad spending habits.
As members of this House we are being asked to agree with this really outrageous bill to authorize the government to spend this money.
One of the things that surprises me is that the Minister of Finance rants and raves in this House about what a wonderful job the Governor of the Bank of Canada is doing. He says he has great confidence in the Governor. The Governor has indicated that he will wrestle inflation to the ground. He is going to bring the inflation rate down to zero per cent.
The extraordinary thing is if the government genuinely believes that the inflation rate will drop to zero per cent over the next five years, it will continue to issue longterm bonds at 11 per cent. Everyone knows that the inflation rate in this country is between 4 per cent and 5 per cent and that interest has two purposes-to compensate the person who borrows the money for the loss of value of the money through inflation and to pay a fee for the use of the money.
The clear implication here is that the loss of value is 4 per cent or 5 per cent which the Governor says he will reduce to zero through his Draconian and vicious policies that affect every Canadian and that we condemn roundly in the House, except himself, of course, with his 36 per cent increase over the last three years. This is a generous increase by any standards especially when you start with a nice plump salary.
The government says it believes the Governor and is convinced that the Governor will reduce the inflation rate to zero. But the government is still paying 11 per

March 29, 1990
Government Orders
cent on its long term money. Why? The Minister of Finance, if he believes as he says he does, that the Governor will reduce the rate to zero, should not issue any long term bonds. He would be crazy to do that because in another three years when the rate is down to zero he could issue the same bonds at 5 per cent or 6 per cent.
Instead of that, the minister is issuing bonds willy-nilly at 11 per cent. Why? Is it because he does not believe the Governor or is it because he does not believe what he himself is doing? Does he believe his policies will keep the inflation rate up at 5 per cent or 6 per cent in spite of the Governor's interest rates? Is the minister working at cross purposes with the Governor?
I invite the hon. member, who I know has discussed this matter extensively with the Minister of Finance in caucus and presumably in private conferences, will want to comment on the way the Minister of Finance is gouging and screwing Canadians with both high interest rates, which he and the Governor have joined up to do, and with the high taxes that the minister has proposed continuously in his budgets.
I ask the hon. member to comment on the position of the Governor because the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have got together with the Governor and said: "Look, we'll give you a little more money, now you take the rap for the high interest rates, and away we go. We'll give you a 30 per cent increase or 36 per cent increase or whatever it is"-it may be more, it might be 60 per cent, we don't know-"in the meantime you help yourself to some extra dough and hike those rates and do your duty, but you take the flak for it. We are going to blame it on you as Governor of the bank and let you take the rap".
Is that what is going on? Has the member discussed those matters with the Minister of Finance? Could he perhaps let us into his confidence and tell us what answers the minister gave him to answer for the atrocious way in which he is running the economy of this country?


Clément Couture: Mr. Speaker, there were many questions but I will try to answer them one after the other.

First, Mr. Speaker, they talked about overall management. I would like the hon. member opposite to say which of the following governments is better: the Liberal government which from 1980 to 1984 raised government expenditures at an average rate of 14 per cent in those four years or the one which from 1984 to 1988 increased expenditures by 3.6 per cent and from 1988 to date, expenditures increases are never to exceed 3.2 per cent.
In 1984, we were left with a $38.3-billion deficit, which we were able to reduce to $28.1 billion in 1988 by cutting government spending. That shows the government's overall management. I think that if you compare the two, we are far, far ahead of you all.
As for monetary policy, as a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, I had the opportunity to meet Mr. Crow many times. I must tell you that in a country as large as ours, with such regional variations, it is clear that we absolutely must have a monetary policy to control inflation. We cannot go back to what we went through in 1980, 1981 and 1982, with interest rates over 20 per cent. We must control them. The one and only way we can control them is monetary policy and I think that the Governor of the Bank of Canada is doing an absolutely impeccable job of keeping inflation under acceptable control.
As for Mr. Crow's salary, everyone has talked enough about it here in the House; I do not see the need to add even a very short comment about it.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a few quotes to my colleague across the way. I know it is unfair to do this but who is in favour of fairness when you are dealing with the Tories. Mr. Speaker, you may recognize who this is: "The inflation rate in the market-place, the non-government controlled part of the economy, is between 5 and 6 per cent. The current interest rate at 13 per cent or 14 per cent is simply too high".
I want my colleague across to guess who said that. I have another here. This one is dated March 13, 1984: "It
March 29, 1990

does not make sense to all of us to have this situation in Canada where interest rates are allowed to rise".
This one is from May 1, 1984: "The only response the minister has is to increase interest rates. That in itself has led to further weaknesses in the already weakening economy over the past six months".
I want my colleague to guess who that is and without keeping the House and all Canadians in suspense too long, those comments were made by the member for Etobicoke Centre on December 13,1982, March 13,1984 and May 1, 1984. I would like to invite comments from my colleague across the aisle.


Clément Couture: Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on what happened here in 1984, because I wasn't here. I was elected on November 21st. But there is one thing that I can tell you people across the way: in a relatively short time, you succeeded in making a morass of our economy. Since 1984, there is a government who takes care of economic details and who is doing an impeccable job in correcting the situation-


An hon. member:: "Impeccable"?


Clément Couture: Yes sir. Considering the mess you left us in 1984, I think that the current statistics give us good reason to be proud of our administration. And obviously, three, four or five years are not enough to correct 12 years of financial neglect. Some say that in 1994-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry but the question and comment period is over.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, the first question that I want to ask is why I cannot support this government's borrowing bill. Before I begin the address I want to make one particularly important point. If one looks at the actions of a person, one can then judge from those actions the kinds of values and beliefs that are in operation.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker:: 

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-65, an act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
[Stage Direction]
March 29, 1990
Government Orders
Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I will continue my debate. I was saying that I wanted to explore with my colleagues the actions of government and attempt to identify, if you will, the values and beliefs that drive its decisions.
If one looks at a person's decisions and the actions he takes, I think it is quite possible to have a sense of his priorities, of what he holds important. I want examine the general budgetary and financial policies of the of the government in order to understand its values and beliefs.
Let us look at some of the cuts in programs, starting with health. The government said that it would not change the formula before it became the government. But in 1986 it cut it by 2 per cent; and in 1989-90 by another per cent; and it froze it for two years. Now who was affected by those kinds of decisions?
The elderly, of course, because they need more health care generally. The sick, obviously. The handicapped. They are the ones who are in need. So what does that say about a government which undertakes those kinds of decisions? It does not make a very positive comment.
Let us look at another reduction; education. Again, the government was not going to change the formula. That is what it said publicly. It was changed in 1986 by 2 per cent; again by 1 per cent in 1989-90; frozen for two years. Who was affected? The young men and women who want to become educated, trained and devote themselves to this country.
There is training and retraining. According to the Canada-U.S. trade deal, we were to have the finest training programs in the world. What happened? There have been reductions all along the way. There have been no adjustments for growth, no adjustments for new programs. Not only were they reduced, they were transferred and put on the backs of the workers and employers. Who will pay for that? The workers, employers and the unemployed.
Who is going to be affected negatively? The unemployed, the people who need help, the workers, those who are called upon to retrain because of the massive changes in our society. One can see this government's values, beliefs, and priorities by examining its actions.
Let us look at literacy. We have in this country roughly five million functionally illiterate Canadians, people who do not read or write well enough to be able to give as
much to this society as they would or withdraw from it what they could. It is costing Canada perhaps $10 billion to $11 billion per year.
The government responds by spending $4.50 a day. What does that say about the government in terms of its values, beliefs and priorities? It suggests a great deal of cynicism, because with $4.50 per day per individual, what can you possibly do?
Let us look at student aid. There have been no changes in criteria since 1984. The cost of living has gone up significantly since then and the cost of education has gone up even higher and more quickly than the regular cost of living.
What has been done? Not only have there been no increases, an administrative fee of 3 per cent has been added on. What is the logic behind adding an administrative fee of 3 per cent to those who need money, to those who have to borrow in order to continue their education. It seems to me that that is totally contradictory to what ought to be done. I mean if you are poor, you ought not to have to pay more in order to pursue an education and a career.
Let us look at research and development. You will recall that the government was going to double the investment. It is roughly half. It has slipped since 1984. We were told to factor out the military. I looked at that because the minister tried to make that point in the House the other day. I looked at the situation and verified that we would still be in sixth place. So let us cut out the com.
Who is affected? All of Canada. All Canadians are affected by the breaking of that promise. Who is affected mostly? Our young men and women, some of our brightest, who contribute most to this country. All of industry, all of society will be affected negatively by the government's actions.
Quite apart from all of those reductions and quite apart from what it says about the beliefs and the values and the priorities, let us look at what else the government has imposed. The costs of the goods and services tax, education, and the postal subsidies will be absorbed. That means that people will be penalized even more. Again our young men and women will have to pay the price. If they have to pay the price and they cannot continue to develop, it will be Canadians and Canada who will suffer.
March 29, 1990

As a result of this freeze that has been imposed by this government over the next two years, there will be an absorption of roughly 10 per cent. The governments own papers predicted that inflation will be roughly 10 per cent over the next two years.
Many of us believe that is a rather conservative estimate, and that inflation will go much higher. But it will be at least 10 per cent. That means that young men and women who go to college and universities, who get into research and development, will have to absorb 10 per cent more costs over the next few years.
I have been following the hypothesis that if you look at an organizations actions, then you can get a sense of its values, a sense of its beliefs, a sense of its priorities.
Programs for aboriginal people have been cut. Their programs have been reduced. The aboriginal people are among the poorest of the poor in Canada. We often forget that we have between 3.5 million to 5 million poor people, most of whom are women, one million of whom are children. We have more food banks than we have McDonald's hamburger restaurants.
Who else has been cut? The multicultural groups, our new Canadians, those people who are hoping to contribute more to this country while preserving what they have and integrating it into the Canadian fabric. Women's groups have been cut. Women have just started to make some inroads, some gains in education and in the workforce. What happens? The moment they start to make some advances their programs are cut, reduced, pushed back. What does that say about the government?
What about the clawback that has affected seniors? Remember that the government tried to deindex and seniors were able to hold it off. Then it came back with this clawback, which is in effect the same thing.
What else was there? The family allowance. That is a direct attack on the families.
If you look at the tax increases, you see that there were 31 tax increases. The goods and services tax will be number 32. Who is affected? Look at the statistics. The poor. Just consider the people who make $25,000 a year and less. You will find that their taxes have increased by 60 per cent. Take the middle class defined as follows: two wage-earners, one earning $28,000 and the other $17,000. You will find that they are paying roughly $300 a
Private Members' Business
month more in taxes than they were paying in 1984. What does that say about government? What do those actions say about its beliefs, its values, its priorities?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member will have 10 minutes remaining in his debate, plus 10 minutes for questions and comments.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS - MOTIONS   FISHERIES PROTECTION OF HALIBUT
Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should protect the halibut fishery off the British Columbia coast from overfishing and ensure adequate stock enhancement by all responsible countries.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the terms of the International Halibut Fishery Commission govern the allocation and the security of this endangered species on the west coast. It is an example of the way in which the fisheries have been managed on both coasts by this government and by its predecessor. At the moment I am concerned and talking about the halibut off the west coast of British Columbia.
In recent years there has been a growing problem with respect to this halibut fishery, namely, that the U.S. troll operations operating out of Alaska have increased to the point that the very future of the fishery itself may well be threatened. This is not a new story about fisheries in Canada.
I refer to the information put forward by the International Pacific Halibut Commission which indicates quite dramatically the direction the catch limits on halibut are in fact going. There is a table put out by the commission called the "IPHC Staff Regulatory Proposals, 1989" in millions of pounds. Most of the material is about area 2: 2A in Washington, 2B in B.C., 2C, 3A, 3B and 4 in Alaska.

March 29, 1990
Private Members' Business
The 1988 catch limit totalled 74.15 million pounds. The 1989 staff recommendations were 64.65 million pounds. The projected future catch limits sets out the same story as we are hearing on the east coast with respect to cod: each year the catch limit is going down. For 1990 the total catch limit is 55.8 million pounds, and for 1991 it will be 47 million pounds.
The commission recognizes that the stocks are being depleted rapidly and is suggesting lower quotas year by year, rather than biting the bullet and making a significant reduction in one year in the hope that the stocks will rebuild.
These figures include the total recreational, treaty Indian and other commercial fisheries.
The origins of many of the problems that have led to the figures I have given can be traced to a 1980 treaty signed between Canada and the U.S. which prohibits the harvesting of halibut in U.S. waters by Canadian fishermen and vice versa. A system for division of the catch was based upon historical catch data held by the IPHC. In area 2, which is from Cape Spencer in northern B.C. to the State of Washington-a lot of water-the Canadian share was set at 60 per cent. The U.S. share was supposed to be 40 per cent of the halibut catch.
There is a chart available again from the same source, the IPHC, which shows that we have not been able to harvest 60 per cent of the total catch in any single year since these records have been kept. In 1984 we came close: between 58 per cent and 59 per cent of the total catch was harvested by B.C. fishermen. It went down to 51.72 per cent in 1985 and to 50 per cent in 1986. There was a bit of a recovery in 1987 when it went up to 51.13 per cent. It went down to 51.52 per cent in 1988 and to 49.7 per cent in 1989. In 1990 it is projected at 49.4 per cent. In 1991 it is projected at 49.2 per cent.
Each year the catch and the projections are going lower and lower. We are getting further and further away from the agreement that we would be able to harvest 60 per cent of the total catch.
One of the major concerns has been that any increase in effort in Alaska, which has been occurring, will seriously affect the harvesting sector in B.C. due to the fact that the migration of halibut from Alaskan waters is interrupted.
Since 1984 there has been a higher than normal abundance of halibut in the Alaskan 2C area. The Alaskan harvesting sector was able to justify an allocation higher than prescribed by the quota due to this abundance.
In 1989, with the halibut stock declining in the 2C area, the Canadian fishermen were still denied the 60 per cent allocation due to the declining stocks in total. The question immediately comes to mind: What is the situation with respect to the total halibut stock?
The viability of the nursery beds was once threatened by the presence of Japanese draggers. Once again this reminds me of what is happening on the east coast with respect to bottom fish stocks.
The U.S. and Canada jointly applied in the 1960s to force Japanese trailers to stop dragging on the more sensitive halibut habitat in the Bering Sea, long before the 200-mile limit ever became law in the late 1970s. The Japanese heavy bottom draggers were tearing up important rearing grounds, which meant they not only slaughtered younger generations of halibut that live to be 30 to 40 years old. but they also ruined feeding and spawning habitat for future generations. The Japanese had to be stopped to protect the species, and they finally were.
As I said, this is the story I kept hearing in Newfoundland and in the Atlantic areas generally about what could be one of the main problems with respect to the cod stocks in those areas.
The viability of the nursery beds were being threatened by the Japanese draggers. They have been expelled. They agreed to be expelled.
Now it is the U.S. dragger fleet that is operating. Regardless of whatever initiatives are taken by the U.S. to monitor activities on the nursery beds or other activities of the U.S. fleet, such as the observer program, the available data indicates that the stock is in serious trouble. According to a submission to the Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries in April 1989, it is the same fleet which with the permission of the Alaskan authorities overfished the king crab stock to the point of extinction in the late 1970s to the early 1980s.
Incredibly the information provided by IPHC scientists is that 50 per cent of the damage done to the juvenile halibut stocks is being done on the nursery grounds by the U.S. dragger fleet. In spite of knowing what is the situation, there is a current construction program which
March 29, 1990

will see put in place in the course of 1989 and 1990 an additional 62 new Alaskan factory trailers.
The by-catch by the U.S. trawlers has been estimated by the International Pacific Halibut Commission scientists to amount to 17 million pounds annually or 7 million more than the legal Canadian quota in the 2B area, which area extends from the U.S. border in the south to beyond central B.C. Again there is a problem with respect to the ability or the willingness of the U.S. regulators to restrict their activity.
There is also the question of the illegal Japanese market. If I may quote from the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union brief of April 1989, it states:
Bob Alverson, the U.S. government appointee to the north Pacific Fisheries Council, was recently astonished to find that before the legal halibut fishery even commenced in May, the four million pound plus Japanese market for under 20 pound halibut has been filled. This illegal trade is supplied almost totally by the U.S. domestic troll fleet.
The United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union set out seven recommendations in its brief. They are that, first, Canada must act immediately to ensure that the U.S. establish regulations prohibiting U.S. trailers from dragging on the more sensitive halibut nursery and rearing grounds.
The second recommendation is that the Canadian government give all possible aid to appropriate private or government groups from Canada and the U.S. which are attempting to lower halibut by-catch limits dramatically in the Bering Sea downward from the current 5,300 tonne limit.
The third recommendation states that American authorities establish a 100 per cent observer program to regulate strictly the U.S. domestic troll fleet. Nothing less will be sufficient.
Fourth, a public investigation into the illegal supply of halibut to Japanese and/or other markets should take place and that corrective measures be taken immediately-
Private Members' Business
Fifth, the United States should compensate Canadian industry for any loss occurring as a result of illegal and/or negligent activity and covered by any such investigation.
The sixth is that the U.S. government move to establish penalties harsh enough to deter law-breakers and to bring them quickly to justice.
Finally, the UFAWU recommends that there is adherence to the Canada-U.S. halibut agreement calling for a Canadian share at the rate of 60 per cent of area 2 quotas.
It is a serious matter. The halibut stock is in danger from overfishing by the U.S. fleets.
The Canadian government, in its Speech from the Throne in April of last year, declared that one of its major concerns was the extent of overfishing which was destroying our domestic industry. This motion will provide all members the opportunity to express themselves in support of an initiative to combat overfishing.
The overfishing endangering the halibut fishery is but one more example of the neglect which has been occurring in respect of the future of this B.C. fishery, as well as of the Atlantic fishery.
I invite all members to support this motion and take this opportunity to demonstrate on this international issue that the Canadian government stands with the fishermen on the west coast in their fight to preserve this Canadian fishery resource for Canadians.
This is a resolution that I think all members of the House could support. It is not criticizing the government. It is asking the government to take action to save a Canadian resource for Canadians. I invite all members to support this motion.


Godfrey Stanley (Stan) Wilbee: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this topic which is very important to British Columbians. I appreciate the motion which has been brought forward by my colleague from Vancouver Island and how ably he presented the problem and the solutions for it.
I had the privilege in my misspent youth of working for B.C. Packers in the halibut industry. In spite of working with raw fish all day, we were still able to go home at night and enjoy a choice halibut steak. To me, halibut is

March 29, 1990
Private Members' Business
one of the most delightful treats that we have on the west coast. I think that it is a product and a stock that we do need to look after.
What I would like to do is review the halibut industry on the west coast and how it has developed. My colleague has very ably done that to some degree.
Halibut is one of the oldest fisheries in the north Pacific. Well back in our native history we see references to the halibut and the significance that it had in the early days before the white man appeared on the west coast.
While salmon and herring are highly cyclical, halibut, as our colleague pointed out, live much longer. They are not as mobile, although they do range over the north Pacific. It was mentioned that these fish live to 30 or 40 years and arrive at several hundred pounds in that lifetime.
In spite of that we are seeing a decline in the numbers of halibut that we are catching on the west coast. I think the important thing is to pinpoint the reason for this. If indeed overfishing is a significant factor, then we should certainly be changing our quotas, and certainly be negotiating with the Americans to make sure that this very valuable stock is being cared for.
There is also some suggestion that the climatic changes and water temperature changes on the west coast do have an effect on the spawning and on the movement of the halibut. As was pointed out, they do move from American into Canadian waters at various times in their life cycle, so it is important to remember that this is an international problem that we are facing.
It was during the 1930s that the halibut fishing industry took a tremendous growth. It experienced substantially increased landings. Following a catch of 44 million pounds in 1931, annual landings of Pacific halibut rose steadily, peaking at a record 75 million pounds in 1962.
During those early years of the 1960s it became very clear that the resource had been overexploited and halibut landings took a sharp downward turn. In the next 12 years these landings plummeted to a low of only 21 million pounds. This figure includes the American catch as well as the Canadian catch in 1974.
As was pointed out, this was following a prolonged period of foreign fishing and low recruitment. The whole
Pacific halibut fishery declined not only because of local overfishing but because the international fleet was overfishing well. The greatest reductions were off British Columbia and Kodiak Island where the foreign trawling had been most intense and prolonged.
In 1979 Canada and the United States extended their territorial limit to 200 miles. After several years of greatly reduced harvesting and stock rebuilding, the harvest levels recovered and the annual landings rose rapidly.
Although the landings in all areas recovered substantially between 1980 and 1987, the sharpest increases have occurred in the Gulf of Alaska. Again, my colleague has referred to the amount of fishing that has been going on.
During those years, between the 1950s and 1960s, the price of halibut was very stable, but as the presence of halibut declined, the prices increased which again encouraged overfishing. In 1980, however, the price of halibut fell again faster than it had risen in the 1970s. As a result the prices declined to what they were in the 1930s. Adding to the decline in the prices was the expanding growth and efficiency of the halibut fleet resulting in a shorter fishing season and less product sold in the higher priced fresh fish market.
On the west coast of Canada the halibut fisheries spans 500 miles. It always has played an important role in the commercial fishery in British Columbia.
Prior to the signing of the extended jurisdiction in 1977 and the implementation of the 200-mile limit in 1979, vessels from both nations fished halibut off each other's coasts. Similarly, the fishing fleets of each nation shared in the good and bad times of the halibut fishery.
Since 1979 and 1980 Canadian and U.S. vessels have been restricted to fishing in the waters within their own national jurisdiction. This has had a tremendous effect on the B.C. halibut fleet because we no longer have the opportunity to fish up in the Bering Sea where there are
2,000	miles of coastline to fish. We are now limited to the 500-mile area off the B.C. coast.
These limitations have had one beneficial effect in that the Canadian government has been able to better control the fishery. It also prevented the Canadian
March 29, 1990

fishermen from sharing in the boom of the 1980s in the Gulf of Alaska.
Between 1979 and 1983, B.C. halibut landings hovered around the 5 million pound level. After 1983, landings have risen steadily and reached 12.9 million pounds in 1988.
Although the increase in the harvest level was good news to Canadian fishermen, catches were increasing even more rapidly in the Alaskan fisheries where substantially larger quantities of halibut are landed. Quota increases were implemented several years later. We recognize that this may not necessarily be due to increased stocks but perhaps to the increased fishing effort.
In 1981, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans limited the growth in the number of fishing vessels in the commercial halibut fishery by cutting the number of licences issued to form a limited entry fishery. Approximately 440 halibut licences were issued to Canadian fishing vessels. It should be noted that not all vessels with a halibut licence participate in the halibut fishery each and every year.
In the mid-1980s, the number of fishing boats was between 301 and 337. Because of the increasing value of the halibut since 1984, in 1988 all 435 licences were renewed.
By 1987, virtually all commercial fishing vessels with halibut fishing privileges were actively fishing halibut. The fishing capacity continued to increase. The Canadian fleet was able to catch in excess of 12 million pounds in a mere 16 fishing days.
In 1989 Canadian fishermen were permitted to fish only one eight-day period and one three-day period. This was largely due to technological changes in the gear and equipment, such as circle hooks, snap-on gear, automatic baiting machines and improved fish finding electronics. This increased the efficiency to levels that had been entirely unheard of and unthought of just five years earlier. The result of these changes was a halibut fleet which in 1987 harvested over twice the catch in nearly one-quarter of the time required in 1982.
As has been pointed out, the changes in halibut fleet catching power were most dramatic in the unlimited entry fishery in the Gulf of Alaska where, in 1987, 30 million pounds of halibut were caught in less than two
Private Members' Business
days. This of course is one of the real concerns of the halibut fishery on the west coast.
In recent years the halibut fishery in the Gulf of Alaska has taken the allowable catch limit, also in a few days, even though recent annual catches are nearing historical highs. For comparison, the 1988 Gulf of Alaska catch limit of 55.5 million pounds was taken in five days and three days, subject to limits on the amount of halibut which may be landed by each vessel, whereas in the late 1970s over 40 days were required to take the annual catch limits of less than 20 million pounds.
The Canadian fishery, which is smaller in size and has limited entry licensing, has also realized substantial increases in catchability and sharp decreases in the numbers of fishing days.
In 1979 the Canadian fleet landed less than 5 million pounds in 40 unrestricted days and in 1988 caught 12.5 million pounds in 13 fishing days.
In 1990 fishermen may choose to fish a four-day period in April or a four-day period in June. The remaining total allowable catch can be taken in a clean-up fishery in September.
The total allowable catch this year is 7.8 million pounds. These shorter fishing seasons are the result of new fishing technology, increased efficiency and, in the case of the United States, increases in the number of vessels.
Declining halibut stocks off the B.C. coast are probably due in part to overfishing, but we need to do much more research into the causes of the decline of the fishery. If there are climatic changes, changes in the sea bed or drift-net fishing, then I agree the Canadian government should certainly take a firm stand in these areas.


Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to support the motion before the House which calls for the protection of the British Columbia halibut fishery from overfishing and the maintenance of adequate stock enhancement by all responsible countries.
For the information of the House, halibut is a migratory stock which spawns in specific spawning areas in British Columbia and Alaska. They migrate south and east. The migration brings them into the fishing grounds of British Columbia and the states of Alaska and

March 29, 1990
Private Members' Business
Washington. It is here that they become available for the long-line fisheries harvest.
There is also an important rearing ground for the halibut fishery in the Bering Sea. This area nurtures the fish which can live to be 30 to 40 years old and weigh up to 500 pounds.
In the 1960s it was discovered that the Japanese trailers were dragging this area and tearing up the feeding and spawning halibut. The Canadian and Americans, under the auspices of the International Pacific Halibut Commission, IPHC, succeeded in stopping the Japanese dragging in this area after intense international pressure was applied.
Today, however, the Americans and Canadians operate under the 1980 treaty which prohibits Canadians from harvesting in American waters and vice versa. The treaty negotiated in good faith was based upon the assumption that the two nations which fought so hard to preserve the halibut stocks would act responsibly in their own fishing grounds. This did not turn out to be the case. The Japanese have been replaced by the Americans who are now trolling the nursing grounds.
One advantage of having fishermen fish in each other's waters was that each nation would have a vested interest in ensuring that the stocks were healthy along the entire migratory route. The Americans, in particular the Alaskans, decided to take advantage of this situation. The Alaskans realized that the fish migrated from the Bering Sea through the waters of Alaska, British Columbia and Washington, in that order. Therefore, they would always have the first grab at the stocks.
From this situation the Alaskan fishing fleet grew dramatically to approximately 4,300 vessels. This is roughly 10 times the size of our fleet in British Columbia. Not only is the fleet huge but it is largely unregulated. Therefore, it is difficult to detect overfishing.
The IPHC has known about this situation for several years but has consistently been unable to persuade the Americans to institute observers on all their vessels. This is annoying to the Canadian fisheries industry which each year helps to stock and conserve the species but continues to find its catch declining in volume.
In 1989, new and alarming statistics came to light regarding the overfishing by the Americans. Here are just a few examples. The Alaskan Fishermen's Journal reported that the southeastern Alaskan troll fishery catch of targeted flounder was less than one-quarter the value of the prohibited halibut and crab taken in the fishery.
IPHC scientists estimated that the incidental by-catch of halibut by the U.S. trailers amounted to 17 million pounds, which was 7 million pounds more than the total allowable catch for Canada in 1988. These figures were later determined to be too low.
The IPHC scientists also believe that 50 per cent of the stock damage done to juvenile halibut stocks is done right on the sensitive nursery grounds. Given these alarming statistics, we must further study methods which will enable us to protect our common halibut nursery grounds and also deter the Alaskans from overfishing and trolling the nursery grounds.
Further to this, it is of the utmost importance that we enlist the help of Americans in this matter. A unilateral Canadian action in this matter is futile without the co-operation of all parties involved in the international halibut fishery.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate the member for Nanaimo- Cowichan for bringing this resolution to the floor of the House and also congratulate the other speakers who have intervened in this motion.
It is very important, from the point of view of the Pacific Coast fishery, that Parliament resolve on this issue and take a strong stand. It is very important to the people on the west coast who have already seen what has happened in the east coast fishery as a result of competing fleets taking more and more of the resource and less and less attention being paid to conservation of that resource. We have seen serious damage done to the fish stocks off the east coast and serious damage done to the economies with fish plants shutting down in a number of towns throughout the Atlantic provinces.
I used to work in the fishing industry in British Columbia back when I was going to university and high school. I worked in a shipyard in Richmond, B.C. owned by Nelson Brothers Fisheries Limited. I recall when the boats came back from the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea they used to bring for the workers in the shipyard huge halibut that they had caught in the Bering Sea and
March 29, 1990

in the Gulf of Alaska. It was my job as somebody who worked in the shipyard to go down in the hold of these big fishing vessels to put a block on these halibut and lift them up so that they could be cut into chunks for the shipyard workers. When those halibut were standing on end with the blocks they used to be eight to ten feet high.
In recent years, the number and size of halibut has declined dramatically. We are concerned on the west coast of Canada that this fish is being fished to extinction by bad management, not necessarily bad management within Canadian waters and by Canadian authorities but definitely bad management in the state of Alaska and in the United States where the prime nursery grounds for the halibut reside.
I hope that this resolution will give strength to our government negotiators and strength to our government in negotiating with the United States, with the government of the state of Alaska and with Alaskan fishermen to try to change the attitude that those fishermen and that those jurisdictions have with respect to the nursery beds of the Pacific halibut.
If we do not protect those nursery beds from which the halibut originate and spread in their migratory patterns throughout the balance of the west coast, as other members have mentioned, we are going to lose these fish altogether. Anybody who has tasted Pacific halibut will know that it is one of the highest quality and value fish that we get off the west coast, second only to our salmon and herring. Again, I would like to congratulate the members who have spoken on this issue.
The problem is that the United States fishery in the Gulf of Alaska and in those critical halibut nursery areas are virtually unregulated. That is the same fishery as was mentioned by previous speakers that fished the Alaska king crab to extinction. What they are doing now is the equivalent of what was discussed several years ago in the Atlantic coast fishery. What they are doing is pulse fishing. As they fish one species to extinction, then they go on to the next species and fish them to extinction. We have to ask ourselves, when they finish with the halibut, what is the next species in line for extinction on the west coast of Canada?
Private Members' Business
This is an extremely important issue. I know that government members, official opposition members and New Democratic Party members are fully in agreement on this issue. I hope that the House will resolve itself in order to give government the authority and the voice of Parliament when it is negotiating with the United States on this issue so that we can come up with a fairer allocation of the fishery between Canada and the United States and also more appropriate methods of protecting the nursery grounds for halibut in the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea so that we do not lose the halibut fishery entirely on the west coast of British Columbia.
We do not need one more species fished to extinction by bad management or by neglect in the discussions and the relations between Canada and the United States. I think on this one, Parliament should give the government the authority to take a very strong stand with the state of Alaska, a very strong stand with the Government of the United States and a very strong stand with American fishermen to let them know loudly and clearly that we would like to see this fishery preserved and that we would like to see this fish brought back from the verge of extinction.


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to speak to the subject matter of Motion M-305, and more specifically to the concerns of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan (Mr. Stupich) regarding the development of halibut stocks.
I would like to take a few minutes to talk about a development program that is a little better known on the Pacific coast, and I am referring to the Salmonid Enhancement Program. The program, a welcome federal-provincial project, was launched in 1977 to double salmonid stocks on the Pacific coast and bring them back to pre-1900 levels. The program was also designed to raise national income levels, create jobs, help remote coastal communities, enhance the well-being of Native peoples, and preserve and protect the environment. The program includes construction and operation of hatcheries, spawning and nursery channels, fish ladders and incubators. It applies techniques including improving habitat, stocking lakes and the use of aquaculture to raise five species of salmonids and anadromous rainbow trout.

March 29, 1990
Private Members' Business
The Salmonid Enhancement Program is expected to produce nearly one-third of salmonid production in British Columbia in the course of the last decade of the twentieth century. Is the hon. member suggesting that the program be expanded to include other species such as halibut? We must realize there are significant differences between the life cycles of salmon and halibut that would make it difficult to apply this enhancement program to halibut.
Pacific halibut is a flat ground fish that may grow to a very large size. In the northern Pacific, halibut is found from Southern California to the Bering Sea. It generally lives in deep waters, especially during the winter when it goes to its spawning grounds off the continental shelf. Halibut prefer cold waters with temperatures varying from 3 to 8 degrees Celsius and have been found at depths of up to 1,100 meters.
The halibut's life cycle starts with tiny eggs freely floating in water. Fertilization is external, and the eggs hatch about two weeks later. The larvae start feeding on zooplankton when their vitellus has been absorbed.
During the first four or five months, juvenile halibut are carried by deep ocean currents. As the larvae mature, their specific gravity decreases. They rise to the surface and drift towards shallow waters on the continental shelf. Many are carried north by the Alaska current to the Gulf of Alaska, the Aleutian Islands and as far as the Bering Sea.
A halibut undergoes significant physical changes in the first six months. Ordinary-looking at first, it gradually changes into a typical flat fish with the eyes located on the upper side of the body.
That is when the fish begins to live in relatively shallow breeding grounds less than 61 metres along the continental shelf where it will remain for about three years, feeding on shrimp and fry.
At age three, halibuts seek deeper waters and a good many of them travel in a southeasterly direction, the opposite of their first migration towards the northeast as larvae. Some have been know to migrate over distances in excess of 6,000 kilometres. Halibuts coming back to B.C. waters are usually five or six years old. Data recorded from tags indicate that migratory stocks mix together and that no distinct population has been noted.
Male halibuts reach maturity at age eight, as compared to age 12 for female halibuts. The latter grow more rapidly and live longer than males do. A halibut weighing more than 45 kilograms is usually female. Specimens weighing up to 227 kilograms have been reported but the average weight of halibut caught on an ordinary fishing line ranges roughly from 14 to 18 kilograms and in an 8-to-12 age bracket. The halibut's known longevity record is 27 years for males and 42 years for females.
The halibut spawns in winter-November to March- at depths ranging from 270 to 400 metres. Spawning grounds have been spotted over wide coastal areas, but we know they are found primarily in British Columbia, Cape St. James, Langara Island and Frederick Island. Goose Island, Hecate Strait and Rose Spit are other known spawning grounds. Females lay a huge number of eggs and fecundity depends on the size of the fish.
Successful stock replenishment also depends on natural abundance cycles which seem to recur every 20 years. Halibut catches are beginning to decrease after several years of record production, so obviously the species will decline over the next few years and halibut landings are bound to be smaller than they have been in recent years.
Accidental young halibut catches are a major cause of mortality, particularly in waters off the Alaskan coast. Contrary to the larger size halibut which prefers to stay in a definite area, younger halibut less than 65 centimetres in lengh travel a lot and may be captured in many fisheries. Younger halibuts have a high growth potential and their mortality rate resulting from accidental catches may reduce significantly the strength of the mature halibut stocks over the following years.
The Government of Canada is concerned about the high mortality rate of the young halibut population resulting from trawl fishing. It should be recognized that last year the accidental catches were somewhat higher than over the past five years. The assessment of accidental catches over the 5 to 10 previous years was 1.5 higher. Canada is asking the United States to implement a conservation program and a monitoring program. I think this is one of the points which will interest my Hon. friend.
March 29, 1990

The United States have recognized the legitimacy of our concerns and support our requests for a stricter implementation program. Other initiatives such as the imposition of quotas per outing, a controlled access, changes to fishing gears, the restriction of over fishing areas and seasons, as well as the closing of spawning grounds are being considered.
As I mentioned earlier, most of the salmon stock enhancement techniques are being used in the shallow fresh water spawning grounds before the prococious parrs start their migration towards the sea where they will mature. Halibut, as I said, has quite a different biological cycle.
Salmons return to fray in the shallow water of the coastal rivers and lakes, while halibuts spawn in deep sea water. It is therefore difficult to implement enhancement activities for the halibut, a pelagic species. The same comparison applies to rearing habitats. The salmon's environment can be modified to a certain extent in fresh water, for instance by restocking lakes, in order to increase productivity but halibut rearing habitats cannot be changed.
Halibut incubation is possible and research is under way in this area. However, this technology is not advanced enough for large-scale application and there is no guarantee that efforts will lead to more abundant halibut stocks for Canadian fishermen. The future of these stocks rests with fishery managers who, as it has already been said, can take certain steps to preserve stocks and make sure that our fishermen benefit from the abundant renewable natural resources in British Columbia waters.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure my hon. colleague that the government objective is to protect halibut stocks in the Pacific as well as other Canadian fish stocks. In dealing with this situation, the Canadian government is working closely with our neighbours to the south, the United States, to conclude agreements aimed at protecting halibut stocks in the Pacific while ensuring a fishing activity which will allow many British Columbia communities to benefit from the economic spin-offs.


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to speak this afternoon on the motion put forward by
Private Members' Business
my friend across the way from British Columbia. I am used to speaking in this House on fisheries matters that tend to pertain more to the east coast and so it is nice to have the opportunity to speak on a matter which is of particular importance to western Canada, to British Columbia.
The fishery in British Columbia is very different from the fishery we have in Atlantic Canada and certainly right now it does not face the same nature or level of problems that we face. Nevertheless, it is important that we not totally forget that the industry in British Columbia is a very important employer in a number of communities along the coast on Vancouver Island, particularly in the native communities. There is a thriving commercial fishery certainly in the context that I know it, a very strong recreational fishery, a commercial recreational fishery, a native fishery that is booming and seeing some real innovation.
The attention of the government of Canada must be maintained in that area. They too have problems. Quite often their problems are problems that we would love to have as they are more problems of allocation of resources, whereas ours on the east coast tend to be in finding the resources that we could allocate. We would certainly have no trouble in allocating fish, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you can imagine, if it were there.
The question of halibut has been discussed quite ably here this afternoon. There are a number of aspects to it. I would like to concentrate if I could on one that is of particular concern. My friends from the New Democratic Party have alluded to the Atlantic Pacific Halibut Commission. It is the organization that governs halibut and governs how we in Canada, and to some extent the United States, catch this species. It is a commission established by both governments to deal with the halibut resource in the northeast Pacific. The commission meets annually to establish quotas and to set regulatory measures and the implementation of those regulations and those quotas is up to the governments of each country.
The involvement of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which is responsible for Canada's role in conservation of fish stocks and also participation in international organizations like the halibut commission, is to ensure that prior to the annual meeting of the commission there is a fair amount of consultation. That consultation is not only focused simply on the particular issue of the annual

March 29, 1990
Private Members' Business
meeting of the commission, and it has an annual meeting of the Canadian participants in the fishery in advance, but also an ongoing consultation throughout the year to deal with issues that may or may not arise on a variety of things such as juvenile mortality, incidental by-catches, particularly in the Alaskan groundfish troll. We have heard a fair bit about that. It is a problem. It is something in which the DFO is involved with the industry, the unions and a number of others.
One of the most important things DFO is trying to do in consultation with the industry and discussions with those involved is to deal with the competitive intensity that we see in the industry. This has moved us more and more to shorter fishery openings. This has caused a problem that I would like to talk about. The intensity of the catch, the intensity of the season is a concern that we have for a number of reasons: the effect it has on the industry, the effect it has on conservation, and the effect it has generally on our ability to produce good quality fish considering the focus of the opening of the season and the intensity that follows from that.
We have seen a huge improvement in technology and larger boats and this enables huge quantities of fish to be caught in very short periods of time. In mere hours, the catch limits are caught. That, in itself, causes a problem. When we catch fish very quickly, we run the risk of not only overfishing but there is a risk of underfishing. The risk of overfishing is very clear because obviously it is in the interests of no one that we catch more than our quota and that is something to be concerned about. At the same time, it is not in the interests of fishermen that we leave fish in the water, that resources be left uncaught, when the allowable catch would have allowed that they be caught and fishermen who depend on every fish that they can catch could have had fish that was left in the frenzy of the season.
Conservation of halibut stocks is particularly important. We have talked about that here today and I think everybody would agree that there has to be a clear focus of a government department responsible for fisheries and this government department is no different. One thing that is a problem is the several millions of pounds of halibut every year which is lost as a result of abandoned gear or of juvenile or under-sized halibut that have to be put back into the water as a conservation method but which we all know is a fairly ineffective conservation method. From time to time there is illegal prospecting going on, where there are catches taken out of season. One of the biggest problems is the short, intense fishing period which heightens all of this.
The current management system reduces the opportunity for fishermen fishing other species. There are many other species that are fished in British Columbia such as salmon, sable fish, Pacific cod, and rock fish. There are halibut catches in those fisheries. There are by-catches and incidental catches. It is important that we and our friends south of the border know that we are managing that, that we are minimizing some of that and ensuring that we do not allow that incidental by-catch and do not maintain those fisheries at the cost of the fishery, generally.
There are some serious marketing difficulties that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is involved in and which result from this high-intensity season. Clearly, one problem is the availability of high quality fresh fish. Because of the huge numbers of fish caught quite quickly, it is frozen, and with the freezing of fish there is not the availability, at all times, of fresh fish and frozen fish, whether we like it or not, does not make as good a product. As a result, we lose the optimization of the value to fishermen and those in the industry, generally.
Harvesting costs go up as more and more equipment is bought to ensure that the individual fisherman can be as competitive as possible and more crews are hired. One of the other short season problems is the risk that it provides for a fisherman, who perhaps for reasons of ill health, weather, or a breakdown of gear, cannot get into the fishery and prosecute it in that intensely short period of time and he or she may be left out totally. It is also important to recognize the safety concerns.
We have some experience in British Columbia and particularly on the east coast with enterprise allocations. Hon. members are well aware that in the mid seventies the enterprise allocations program in the eastern Canadian cod fishery was developed so that we would avoid this highly competitive and highly intensive attack on the stocks. Frankly, it is in the interests of those in the industry, those who fish and those who work in fish
March 29, 1990

plants. If we can spread the work out over a greater period of time, there is an interest in doing that.
Obviously, what I have said is not going to be supported by everyone. There is much controversy about moving into a limited entry fishery or a more specifically managed fishery. It is something that changes the way things have developed. Obviously, it will affect some enterprises and some fishermen. I do not think the Minister of Fisheries intends to move immediately or quickly on any of these issues. They are issues that are important to discuss as we look at the conservation.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: He never moves quickly on anything. I don't know why he would move quickly on this one.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: My friend opposite, who not 10 minutes ago admitted he knew nothing about the halibut fishery could not keep himself quiet for more than 8 minutes. But I think that is a great credit to him.
I do want to allow what I think is a very important speech. One of my colleagues is very anxious to say a few words on the halibut fishery. Those of us from one coast or another tend to dominate discussions on the fishery. One of the things we have tried very hard to do is to raise the profile of the fishery, particularly the Atlantic fishery. I know my friend opposite is keen to see the Pacific fishery become of interest to Canadians from all parts of the country.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Get the Minister of Fisheries working.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: My friend from Calgary Southeast is very keen to contribute to this debate. I think it speaks well of my colleagues who are interested in the industry and the problems. I, like all members, perhaps except for the member for Kingston, am very anxious to hear what he has to say. I know he will get the full attention of all members. I am very pleased that he is participating in this debate.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Like the hon. member for St. John's East, we are most anxious to hear the next speech. In fact, I can indicate on behalf of the opposition that we would be prepared to have Your Honour not see the clock so we could complete discussion on this motion. It seems that everyone is in agreement. I know the hon. member who is about to speak and I would like to hear his speech. I am prepared to give consent to sit here later if we could
Private Members' Business
conclude the debate. I will sit until nine o'clock if it would assist. I just want to make that clear.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Perhaps it would be inappropriate for me to comment on such silliness, Mr. Speaker, but I thought it would help you. I cannot comment on how unanimity is determined across the way just now, but I would like to thank my hon. friend from Kingston. I think my friend down from Calgary can carry on and we will see how it goes. A wink and a nod, even to a blind member of Parliament and we might get somewhere.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I quite enjoyed the remarks of the hon. member for St. John's East. I listened with interest to the concern he expressed for the west coast fishery. Here is a member from Newfoundland expressing his concern and sharing our concern as westerners with our west coast fishery. The member knows the problems of fishermen. We in this house are all aware of the tireless efforts of the hon. member for St. John's East on behalf of the fishermen of his province. Now he is expressing his concern for the fishermen on the west coast as well.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: He is trying to get the Minister of Fisheries to do something.


Lee Richardson: Well, if he does it will be to the credit of the hon. member for St. John's East who has always had the interests of fishermen at heart.
As a matter of fact, last summer, the hon. member for St. John's East invited me to his riding and around Newfoundland to visit the fisheries. Together we went to visit fishermen to hear first-hand their interests. He thought it was important for a fellow from the prairies, from the Rocky Mountain province of Alberta, to understand first-hand the concerns of fishermen. It was a great insight for me, as I think it would be for all members. If the hon. member for Kingston who has entered this debate in part today would take the opportunity, I am sure at the invitation of the member for St. John's East, would go and visit the fishery, he would not be so flippant in his remarks about the difficulties the fishermen are experiencing.
I would like to express my pleasure in speaking on the Pacific halibut fishery. Conservation of halibut stocks has been a priority in the administration of the Pacific fishery and will continue to be a priority as the abundance of halibut stocks decline naturally and as the capacity of the fleets to catch halibut grows.

March 29, 1990
Adjournment Debate


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity again to condemn the government for its savage and unthinking cuts to aboriginal communications. Ordinary Canadians throughout the country have reacted with shock and dismay. Aboriginal Canadians are outraged.
What makes these cuts so offensive is the way they were announced, with no warning and no time provided for the aboriginal communications societies to find alternative sources of funding. In addition to the suddenness of the cuts are the inevitable comparisons to what did not get cut in this budget.
The government will be spending millions of dollars on goods and services tax advertising, or propaganda. It bought some stripes for the National Gallery for over $1 million. It wrote off millions in Third World nations' debts but slashed and eliminated funding for aboriginal political organizations and communications.
The government does not comprehend the vital importance of aboriginal communications to aboriginal people. It has blinders on when it comes to languages other than the country's two official languages.
The Prime Minister promised, in 1985, that programs for aboriginal people would not be cut back. Let me quote from the Prime Minister's press release of April 18, 1985:
Current funding levels of programs designed to correct the serious
inequities which exist for native people in native communities will be
maintained.
He went on to say:
Policies regarding aboriginal people will be made after open, public consultation, especially at the grassroots level.
The Prime Minister also said in the same statement that "the special relationship between Canada and the aboriginal people should be strengthened".
All of these beautiful sounding promises and commitments have been broken in the recent budget.
The serious inequities that the Prime Minister mentioned still exist. They have not gone away since 1985. In fact, many of them have been made worse by the government's actions. The rate increase by Canada Post on food mail shipments to northern and remote communities is but one example.
The government's own documents attest to the continuing disparities. Last summer the government released its aboriginal economic development strategy. I will quote some figures from the government's own strategy paper:
By all measures of socio-economic disparity, the 600,000 people who identify themselves as aboriginal continue to be the most disadvantaged group within Canadian society. Employment rates among the aboriginal working-age population have been about 45 percent compared with 63 percent for the non-aboriginal population. Of those employed, incomes are up to a third lower than levels for employed non-aboriginal people.
Almost 30 percent of aboriginal individuals aged 15-24 have less than a grade 9 education, compared with 7 percent per cent for their non-aboriginal counterparts. More than 76 percent have neither completed high school nor pursued post-secondary education, whereas the corresponding percentage for nonaboriginals is 44 percent.
Despite these low education and employment statistics, the government capped post-secondary education funding.
In the area of health, serious inequities persist. A recent report of the Canadian Institute of Child Health confirms the continuing problems.
The aboriginal mortality rate from injuries and suicides, hospitalizations due to respiratory diseases and pregnancy complications remain much higher than the national average. Life expectancy for aboriginal people is still much lower than for non-aboriginal people. Aboriginal children born in the late 1980s will live, on average, 68 years. Other Canadian children can expect to live 76 years.
March 29, 1990

The aboriginal infant mortality rate is double the national average. Aboriginal children have consistently higher death rates due to injuries. Aboriginal teenagers have a suicide rate seven times higher than the total Canadian rate. Tuberculosis and other infectious conditions disproportionately affect aboriginal people.
The Canadian Institute of Child Health report states that "we have a Third World problem within our society" in terms of the health disadvantages of aboriginal children. The pattern of disease among Canada's aboriginal people resembles the main killers of the developing world.
The Prime Minister and the government can hardly argue in the face of all of this evidence that disparities no longer exist between aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people. So why was the funding cut for aboriginal communications and organizations?
As for the consultation promised by the Prime Minister-open public consultation at the grassroots level- there was none. Instead, the government has set up a task force after the cuts were announced. The task force is to assist aboriginal communications societies to diversify their funding and revenue base.
The government totally eliminated the $3.5 million Native Communications Program in the February 20 budget. It slashed funding under the Northern Native Broadcast Access Program by 16 per cent or $2.2 million. A broadcast distribution fund of $800,000 was suspended. All this means a potential loss of 180 jobs, aboriginal jobs in a communications field which is unique and cannot be replaced.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission last year said that Canada's treatment of aboriginal peoples is a national tragedy. Today the Canadian Human Rights Commission said it has no reason to alter its judgment. The commission's press statement of today states:
If there is any single issue on which Canada cannot hold its head
high in the international community, any single area in which we can
be accused of falling down on our obligations, it is in this area of
aboriginal relations.
The minister would be well advised to read the human rights report which was released today.
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, since there has been criticism of the budgetary cuts in the native programs administered by the Department of the Secretary of State, I would like to remind members of other quite substantial funds still being made available from that quarter.
Even after a cut of 5 per cent the 99 Friendship Centres serving native people in urban areas will be receiving $17.4 million.
The Aboriginal Representative Organizations Program will still receive $8.2 million in the form of sustaining grants to organizations representing aboriginal people.
The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs which, already gives considerable funds to status Indian organizations, has seen its budgets increase from $1.4 billion in 1984-85 to $2.3 billion in the current year. Another 32 native organizations will still be receiving sustaining grants from the Secretary of State. The funding these organizations receive will be reduced by between 7.5 per cent and 15 per cent. The department will still be providing $11.3 million under the Northern Native Broadcast Access Program to enable native organizations to produce and broadcast on regional radio and TV in the north.
In addition, the department has provided over $1 million in transitional funds to all organizations whose funding was eliminated under the Native Communications Program. This money is to assist the native communications societies in diversifying their funding base.
Finally, the Secretary of State will continue to provide $2.2 million for aboriginal women's programs and $1 million for social and cultural development. These programs are not affected by our restraint measures.
There is no question that the decisions about funding reductions have been difficult ones to make in the Department of the Secretary of State as well as elsewhere, but programs have been preserved which served the neediest client groups. That seems to be the fairest possible way to handle the reductions we must make in government spending.
This principle can be seen at work in other departments. Money and social services goes up $77 million in

March 29, 1990
Adjournment Debate
one year. There will be $59 million more for education. Health services for native people are being given an additional $35 million. The economic development program in Indian and Northern Affairs will get an increase of $93 million, which is 40 per cent in one year. In total, other support is increasing by more than $200 million in a year when government services elsewhere in the country are holding the line or being cut.
Finally, when we look at projected capital expenditures on behalf of native people, we see even more strikingly the high priority given to their needs. As one example among many, the budget allots $592 million for on-reserve facilities and related services, an increase of $28 million over the current year. The government's sustained commitment to the well-being of our aboriginal community and culture is clearly evident. All together, government funding for aboriginal programs will rise to more than $4 billion in 1990-1991.
To conclude, difficult decisions are sometimes needed to solve our deficit problems, but the handling of native programs has been as fair and as a balanced as possible. I am sure we would not want it any other way.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBIanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to elaborate on the question that I posed the Minister of Fisheries on Thursday last, March 22.
The question had to do with the dumping at sea of large quantities of fish by offshore fishing trawlers. I had made reference to the minister's visit to Canso soon after he assumed his portfolio in late February when he met with a group of trawlermen from Canso, Nova Scotia. The trawlermen presented him with tangible evidence of fish being dumped at sea.
I am not talking about the discarding the fish at sea. That is a current practice in offshore fishing activities, of taking a load of fish in and culling the catch that is brought on board by a trawler. I am talking about another practice, which is dumping the fish at sea. That is the practice of releasing a large quantity of fish caught in the large trawler net. That is a much more wasteful practice and that is the practice which the trawlermen were bringing to the attention of the Minister of Fisheries. They had photographs and other evidence to demonstrate their case.
This is a controversial issue. The offshore fishing companies like National Sea have been denying that large-scale dumping occurs. The government officials of DFO have been denying that large-scale dumping occurs. While they admit that there is some form of discarding that takes place, they say it is a limited degree of high grading, that it is controllable, and that is not happening at an unreasonable rate or at least that they cannot get a handle on it.
We have to understand the position of the trawlermen. These trawlermen go out for nine days with the cloud of the closure of their community and the loss of their jobs over their heads. Their whole livelihood is at stake. The government and the companies are telling them that there are no fish. They are catching vast quantities of fish and are obliged to throw those fish overboard. These are the same fish that could be processed in their community. At the same time, the plant that they fish to is closing its doors.
You can understand the frustration of the trawlermen in Canso, Mr. Speaker, when they brought this to the concerns of the minister. They were frustrated even more when the minister seemed to shuffle-off then-concerns after a month.
I am glad to bring this matter to the attention of the House. I want to advise the House that it is not only the trawlermen at Canso who have raised these concerns. The report of the Senate committee on the marketing of fish in Atlantic Canada recommends that "statements made to the committee by many fishermen indicated that large but unknown quantities of potentially valuable fish were being caught and routinely dumped at sea because they were either too small or incidental to the species sought." These are trawler boats travelling at sea looking for one species, such as cod and get a large quantity of another species. They do not want it so they pitch it overboard. As a result, this fish is wasted.
To give you an example of the extent of this practice, it is as if we finally started bringing oil from Hibernia and dumped two-thirds of the oil back into the ocean. That is the degree of the practice we are talking about.
March 29, 1990
[Stage Direction]
This is a controversial issue and we need more information. First, it is very important that we recognize, as the Senate recommends, the potential seriousness of the issue and we take steps to get the facts.
The Minister of Fisheries should take the matter seriously enough to be willing to get facts to determine the extent to which this is happening. What are the causes? What are the incentives to the companies and to the trawlermen who are allowing this practice to happen.
Second, we have to take a new attitude towards commercial fishing as we have towards other activities such as forestry or manufacturing and view this activity as an environmental activity. Its profound concerns for the environment, commercial fishing and the practices of commercial fish companies have to be subordinate to the broader issue of the environment and the status of our resource.
We will have to bear the cost of taking all the fish we catch and not leave some at sea because that fish is not particularly valuable at that point in time given the market situation.
I will close now and I welcome the response of my colleague opposite to this veiy important issue.
Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond to my hon. friend because he knows of where he speaks and raises an interesting concern.
I am sure he does not suggest that the habit of culling or selective dumping is one that we should encourage. It is abhorrent to dump any resource. There is no question that it goes on. To say that two-third is dumped is a bit out of whack.
I was with the Minister of Fisheries when he was in Canso, Lockeport and Gaultois. I travelled across the country with him. It was clear that the trawlermen who make their living on trawlers are very conscious of conservation. They are very conscious that they are a part of a system that from time to time abuses the resource. They are very specific on that matter.
My friend opposite is right to the extent that officials in the Department of Fisheries say that when there are observers on the ships the discard level is between 2 per cent and 5 per cent. The trawlermen said that when the observers are on the ship the discard levels are about as
Adjournment Debate
observed, but when the observers are not on the ships it is significantly higher.
The Hache Task Force made very clear and the government has agreed that there must be much greater-and I would suggest 100 per cent-observer coverage on the trawlers. My friend talks about information. It is important that the Department of Fisheries and the industry has information on the catch, rapidity of catch, the bi-catch and the times. Those things are important.
The Hache report makes very clear that that is important. I think today on the Scotian shelf, observes cover about 50 per cent. In the North Atlantic fishery it runs about 80 per cent. Northern cod are running 100 per cent. So it balances itself out.
It is incumbent upon the Department of Fisheries- the industry and others will have to be involved-that we move to 100 per cent observer coverage. I hope that addresses the problem.
The minister was very moved by what he saw in Canso. He went to his department as soon as he returned and asked what is going on? He is very conscious of it. I think you will see that in his actions over time as we come to grips with this sort of problem. We cannot under any circumstance condone the waste of this resource, particularly when we are in such difficult situations as we are now.


TOURISM
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, on February 14 I asked a question of the Minister of Tourism to the effect that the new GST would have a detrimental effect on the tourist industry in this country.
The minister answered that it was not an additional tax facing the tourist industry but the replacement of the old tax.
The fact of the matter is that I could have brought to the House this afternoon countless letters which I have in my office and could table if necessary. These letters concern the difficulties the tourist industry will have with the GST.
I have had calls from travel agencies that tell me it will be very difficult to package tours from the United States into Canada because each individual tourist from the United States or from other countries in the world who come to Canada will have to make out individual rebate

March 29, 1990
Adjournment Debate
slips. People who come to visit this country do not want to do paperwork.
I would like my hon. friend who will answer these questions if he has elaborated the special rebate? It was supposed to be a global rebate rather than individual tourists filling out a rebate slip. I would like to know if there are any developments in that regard.
Some of the letters I have received mention the fact that if a tourist comes to Canada and does not spend a minimum of $300, be it in restaurants or buying a gift, they cannot have a rebate. Statistics have shown that the tourists coming to this country from the United States when adding up their restaurant bills and money spent on small gifts or souvenirs may not reach the minimum because people who watch their spending are going to be very sensitive to the additional 7 per cent tax.

I will be brief, Mr. Speaker, because I do not wish to make the question too long for my hon. colleague opposite who has to answer it. Ele will understand that the tourist industry has had rough times in the last two years. Let us not get into the causes. There may be many reasons why tourism has gone through some difficulties in Canada.
I would submit that the Minister of Tourism should make the Minister of Finance aware of the fact that this tax, as its stands, will certainly cause problems for the organizations and the people who organize tours of our country for visitors from all over the world, which are commonly called package tours.
You will therefore understand the concerns expressed by the Tourism Industry Association of Canada in the letter I received from them, among others. As a matter of fact, they came here on February 11 or 12, or was it the 14. I do not remember the exact date. They have voiced numerous times their concerns regarding this tax and were not satisfied with the answers they were given.
Essentially, based on all the letters and all the phone calls I have received, the tourist industry is asking if it would be possible to get a rebate. The businesses would like to know if the companies organizing tours, be it in a given province or across Canada, for a week, two weeks or a month, could themselves apply an overall rebate. That way, each visitor from outside the country could benefit from that rebate. If that were allowed, the package tours from all over the United States would not be affected by the tax. That is perhaps one of the concerns expressed by the industry. There are many more, but this is one of them.
I will have the opportunity, in the weeks to come, to elaborate further on the questions I asked the minister of Tourism. However, for now, I would appreciate it if my hon. friend could explain to me if there has been any new development regarding this special rebate. Will tour companies in Canada be able to claim the rebate collectively for the tourists? Will the government eliminate the $300 minimum required in order to be eligible for the rebate?


Mr. Barry Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and the Liberal party do a disservice to the tourism industry by misrepresenting the impact of the GST on the tourism industry.
Every single study on this subject supports the findings of the Tourism Research Institute of the Conference Board of Canada. The facts are that tourism in Canada will continue to grow every year under the GST. After the third year of implementation, tourism will grow faster with the GST than without it. Those are the facts.

Two major reasons support these optimistic projections. First, the fact that Canada will become more competitive as a result of the GST and will allow industrial sectors to secure and maintain their share of the market. Therefore, the GST will ensure economic growth.

Second, and most important for the tourism sector, the Minister of State for Tourism working closely with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue have designed the GST in a way that recognizes the importance of tourism to the Canadian economy.
We will have a GST rebate for international visitors which will extend to both accommodations and purchases. We are the only country to offer a rebate to international travellers for accommodations. Except for transport or air services to the continental United States, inbound and outbound international passenger transportation will also be zero rated.
March 29, 1990

Other measures being looked at to ensure the rebate system is user friendly include simplifying the administrative aspects for tour packages, as the hon. member had mentioned, and conventions where accommodation is offered as part of an all-inclusive package of services.
In addition, tourism operators will for the first time be able to claim input credits on business purchases which will reduce the price impact of the GST by 2 per cent to 3 per cent.
In designing the GST, the government has recognized tourism as an export industry, an industry with enormous
Adjournment Debate
potential for expansion and job creation. We have worked hard with the industry to ensure that tourism is in the best position to benefit from the new tax system. We have succeeded, and the hon. member should recognize that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 30, 1990