1990-06-05

[Stage Direction]
[Translation)

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


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration.
This is an interim report on demography and immigration levels.

The interim report was tabled at the specific request of the minister, to indicate what immigration levels in Canada should be during the next five years.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-309, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Surrey-White Rock.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member have leave to introduce the bill?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, this is the bill I wanted to submit last Thursday and time is catching up on me now.
It is a bill to change the name of my constituency from Surrey-White Rock to Surrey-White Rock-South Langley. It is incumbent upon the name of the constituency to reflect the geography and the population base of the riding and until now a certain large proportion of my constituency has been left out of the name. I would like to have the constituency name reflect the population of the area. Langley has been left out, therefore I would like to have South Langley included in the name.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I see what point we are at in Routine Proceedings. I was inadvertently held up and have a Striking Committee report which relates to a couple of committee meetings later this afternoon. I wonder if I could have unanimous consent to table that report.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to table the report?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Routine Proceedings STRIKING COMMITTEE

June 5, 1990



PRESENTATION OF FORTY-FIFTH REPORT

Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the forty-fifth report of the Striking Committee.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-310, an Act to change the name of the electoral district of Laval.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member have leave to introduce the bill?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Guy Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a bill that would allow me to change the name of my riding to Laval West instead of Laval.
The purpose of this bill is to give the western part of Laval more prominence-to enable people to identify more readily with their riding, because at the present time, the riding of Laval logically would mean the entire island, although there are actually three ridings on Laval Island. I therefore would like to see the western part identified as Laval West.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


PETITIONS
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, today, I have the honour to present a petition signed by almost 8,000 people from the city of Windsor, Ontario.
This petition has been duly certified by the Clerk. The petitioners call upon Parliament to direct the federal government through the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Transport to take all steps within its power to protect the interests of the residents of Windsor, Ontario who would be adversely affected by a proposed expansion of Detroit City airport and who were adversely affected by last year's expansion, including using Canada's sovereignty over its own air space through which any additional flights using an expanded Detroit City airport would go, to ensure that no such expansion takes place that creates noise or other pollution, brings about deterioration of the quality of life, and creates risks to the health and safety of the Canadian residents in question.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions.
First, I present a petition from approximately 200 residents from the riding of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and from people in other parts of Saskatchewan who are concerned about the goods and services tax.
The petitioners call upon the government to enact some laws that will provide fair taxation for Canadians. They call upon the government to deal fairly with average Canadians and with those who are having difficulty making it through a difficult time in Saskatchewan. They want the government to introduce a fair tax system in the country.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of farmers in Saskatchewan.
The farmers call upon the government to reinstate oats and give it the same protection under the Canadian
June 5, 1990

Wheat Board that is now enjoyed by wheat. They have a concern over the future of marketing boards and the orderly marketing system in the country.
The petitioners call upon the government to reinstate oats and barley, and to give them the same protection that wheat has now under the Canadian Wheat Board.


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 am tabling today a petition from Chibougamau, in the federal riding of Roberval, as a result of the recommendations of the Task Force on Tax Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas.
Mr. Speaker, your petitioners reject the conclusions of the task force and want to see Chibougamau recognized as an isolated area, as defined under the present tax benefit system.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, despite the vote taken in the House a week ago today, I would like to present a petition signed by 215 residents of Edmonton, almost all of whom are women, that points out that the choice to bear children or not to bear children is a matter of personal choice, not criminal law.
The petitioners point out that the Canadian Medical Association already has guidelines and regulations in place concerning abortion and that criminal sanctions do nothing to address the reasons why women seek abortions or to reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies.
Wherefore, the petitioners call on Parliament to refrain from imposing any criminal sanctions against abortion.
I present this, Mr. Speaker, because I am certain the matter will return to the House.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to present a petition signed by Canadians who are opposed to the government's GST proposal.
Routine Proceedings
Your petitioners call upon this House to reject the GST proposal again, as soon as it comes back to the House.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some pride to present a petition on behalf of over 200 Canadians and others from around the world. They have forwarded a petition pointing out that the city of Revelstoke, as a result of the abandonment of the VIA Rail The Canadian train through the Rocky Mountains, has become truly isolated due both to winter closures as a result of avalanches and the fact that there is no scheduled air service to that community.
They point out that the discontinuance puts more vehicles on the Trans-Canada Highway through Rogers Pass. This highway is already close to capacity in summer months and will require twinning, at great expense to the people of Canada.
They further point out that the discontinuance will put more vehicles on highways passing through Glacier and Mount Revelstoke National Parks causing great environmental damage to these ecological reserves. They further point out that the discontinuance will deny that community in the province of B.C., revenue from the tourist traffic the passenger train carries.
Mr. Speaker, I point out that in addition to almost 200 signatures from throughout the west Kootenays in British Columbia, there are further signatories from Grey Town, New Zealand; Perth, Australia; Nabari City, Michigan; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Washington, D.C.; New York, New York; London, Ontario; Alberta, throughout Saskatchewan; Seattle, Washington; and Portland, Oregon. There is a great demand for this service and the petitioners ask that that rail line through the Rocky Mountains be re-instituted.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty to table again today a petition signed by several Canadians from Newfoundland who would like to tell the House how they would not like to see the goods and services tax imposed by the government. The tax will impose upon all Canadians an extra 7

June 5, 1990
Routine Proceedings
per cent on all their goods and services purchased after January 1, 1991.
They would like to tell the government and Parliament that they object strongly to this imposition on their goods and services and that they believe it is an unprecedented tax grab from the pockets of Canadians. This government has already increased taxes 31 times since it took power and the effect of this new tax will cause higher inflation, probably higher interest rates than we have at this time and most likely, higher unemployment. They would like to see this tax scrapped absolutely.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty, as the elected member for Hamilton West, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present to this House a petition that is certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions. It is signed by thousands of residents who reside in and around Hamilton.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to revise the laws of Canada to replace the Young Offenders Act with an updated Juvenile Delinquents Act with a lowered maximum age of 13 years.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, today I stand to present a petition signed by 150 residents of Cavendish, Newfoundland. They are extremely worried about the proposed goods and services tax. They ask that this government reject it. They feel that it is extremely regressive and that the regions of this countiy will suffer far more than some of the other more centralized regions. They ask that the government go back to the drawing board and come up with something that is far more equitable for all the people of Canada.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to present a petition which has been certified correct under Standing Order 36. It is signed by 41 residents of Newfoundland, from Islington, Whiteway and Heart's Delight.
These Canadians are complaining about the government's plans with respect to the goods and services tax. They recognize, notwithstanding the denials from the Minister of Finance and his colleague, the Minister of State for Finance, that the goods and services tax will not affect the price of food, but in fact that it will affect the price of food in their communities because of transportation costs. They object to this tax and call upon Parliament to reject it.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe -Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of 34 residents of Sunnyside in the great province of Newfoundland. They call upon the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister to withdraw the goods and services tax. The residents of Sunnyside in the province of Newfoundland believe the tax is a hidden tax and proposes a huge new tax burden, in particular, on middle and low-income Canadians. The tax is inflationary and is neither in the best interests of Canada nor its citizens.
The signatories in question ask the government to withdraw this tax immediately.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present petitions from over 1,400 individuals from the Dartmouth, Eastern Passage, Preston and Coal Harbour area of Nova Scotia.
The petitioners ask the government to withdraw its regressive, ill-conceived goods and services tax proposal. These Canadians feel very strongly that this tax, which is a hidden tax, is unfair to low and middle-income Canadians. They believe it is a very regressive and unprecedented tax grab and urge the government to withdraw this measure immediately and to come forward with real tax reform which helps all the people across the countiy.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of several residents of Newfoundland, pursuant to Standing Order 36, whereby they request that the government scrap the GST which will be applied to virtually everything they buy. Now we have just found out that it will be applied to everything they buy, including essential food items in smaller stores. The tax will present an unfair hardship on low and middle-income Canadians.


Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege this morning to present a petition from the residents of Nipissing pursuant to Standing Order 36. The petitioners are upset that the government has seen fit to introduce charges that will reduce housekeeping services to veterans and subsequently increase the cost of long-term care. There are over 150 signatures. They
June 5, 1990

feel that the veterans have already given service to this country and should not be targeted by these measures.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, question No. 290 will be answered today:


Mrs. Stewart: 1.	Is Petro Canada exploring for oil in the Ecuador Amazonian rain forest and, if so, for each oil well (a) what is the composition of the drilling muds, including all additives (b) what were the results of the chemical analyses (i) of the sediments settled out from the drilling muds and the formation water in the sumps (ii) of the formation water pumped into the sumps (iii) after water treatment and release from the sumps (c) were the sediments tested for heavy metals and if so, which ones (d) what was the ph readings and oxygen content of the water released (i) how do these readings compare to baseline studies of streams in the vicinity?
2.	Is a fish impact study being conducted at a well, and if so, when will it be completed?


Hon. Arthur Jacob Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Petro-Canada reports as follows:
1. To date, Petro-Canada has drilled two wells in the Oriente Basin in Ecuador. Both of these wellsites were constructed and operated according to industry approved, environmental standards which are accepted internationally.
1. (a)-(b) During the drilling operations at both sites all fluids and drill cuttings were contained in drilling sumps dug into laterite clay and lined with an impermeable plastic liner. The management and testing of the mud system was carried out by a leading international mud service company, according to standards which are among the most stringent in the world.
Routine Proceedings
In some cases, geological formations contain low concentrations of heavy metals. However, analysis of the drilling mud and sumps at both locations show the absence of these metals.
Government standards determine the concentration of chemicals that can be released with the fluid portion of drilling muds from the sump into the surrounding environment. If these fluid components do not meet the necessary standards, the sump is chemically treated to neutralize or precipitate out the offending chemicals. The sump is then dewatered, again according to standards, to prevent site erosion, disturbance of local vegetation and pollution of surface water sources.
Following the dewatering of the sump, the remaining mud and cutting components, contained in the liner, are covered over and the sump is capped and contoured to prevent erosion and invasion of surface water.
The procedures described above, including the sump construction procedures and chemical analyses of the mud, were carried out at both sites. One sump has been closed in and the wellsite restored to facilitate natural revegatation. The other sump remains open and secured as Petro-Canada develops their plans for potential further work at the wellsite. Once these decisions are made and necessary work is conducted, this second sump will be restored.
2. Petro-Canada continues to study natural revegetation as well as fish and water quality in nearby local streams to ensure that the corporation's programs are successful.


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


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

June 5, 1990
Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-26, an Act to amend the Railway Act (grain and flour subsidies), as reported with an amendment from a legislative committee.

Mr. Speaker:: There are seven motions on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-26, an Act to amend the Railway Act (grain and flour subsidies).
Motions Nos. 1, 3 and 6, standing in the name of the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex, are in order and will be grouped together for the purposes of debate.

The intent of these motions is to continue the charge already provided for in the present or existing legislation, namely, Section 281 of the Railway Act, for another five years.
A vote on Motion No. 1 will be applied to Motions Nos. 3 and 6.
A motion similar to Motion No. 2 was moved, debated and negatived in the legislative committee which considered this bill. The intent of this motion in amendment is to continue a charge presently in the statute law with respect to the ports of Halifax, Saint John and West Saint John. This was the principle and intent of the amendment moved in legislative committee.
Thus, I must say that, pursuant to Standing Order 76(5), this motion cannot be selected.
Motions Nos. 4, 5, and 7, standing in the name of the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, delete Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the bill. Such motions are in order at this stage of our proceedings and these three motions will be grouped for debate.
A vote on Motion No. 4 will be applied to Motions Nos. 5 and 7.


MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. Speaker:: I will propose Motions Nos. 1, 3 and 6 to
the House.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex) moved:: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 1 by striking out lines 5 to 27 at page 1 and lines 1 to 22 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"1.(1) Section 281 of the Railway Act is amended by adding
thereto, immediately after subsection (2) thereof, the following
subsection:
"(2.1) Subsection (2) expires on April 1, 1995."
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 1 by striking out lines 23 and 24 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) Section 281 of the said Act is repealed on April 1, 1995." Motion No. 6
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 14 to 18 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"4. Sections 2 and 3 shall come into force on April 1, 1995."
He said: Mr. Speaker, these amendments at report stage of Bill C-26, the at and east legislation, if passed, will delay the removal of this program until 1995. This will fulfil several objectives. It will allow those organizations which are dependent upon these rail rates to plan rational alternative routes and methods to export grain and flour in order to maintain both an equitable return and their competitiveness in international markets.
This bill, as it stands, would adversely affect both the returns of producers and their international competitiveness. In fact, this has already happened. The benefits of the at and east legislation were withdrawn a year ago. The harvest of wheat will start less than one month from now in Essex County in southwestern Ontario. This has left the Ontario Wheat Growers Marketing Board and, indeed, the wheat producers of Canada in a very difficult position.
The government has chosen to withdraw the legislation without any thought to the circumstances or the difficulties it has imposed upon the producers and the local elevators, and the ability of the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board to move that product into the market during the year.
June 5, 1990

In the past, the Ontario Wheat Producers' Growers Marketing Board, through its pooling system, would purchase the wheat from the farmers, giving them an initial payment upon delivery at the elevators. It would then store that wheat for a number of months if necessary in Bay Port elevators at Georgian Bay. This would allow them to supply Atlantic Canada with wheat or flour during the winter months when the seaway was frozen up and also to export.
Consequently the elevators at Halifax and the port of Saint John have been adversely affected by this legislation as well. The domino effect or the chain reaction to this withdrawal has vibrated across the eastern prairies and all of eastern Canada.
It is ironic to note that the government is now talking about an alternative program, but it is too late. If it was going to have an alternative program, it should have been in place before the legislation was withdrawn. In the meantime we see elevators being demolished or slated for demolition in the Georgian Bay area in Port McNicoll, Midland, and Owen Sound. While these elevators may have been built a long time ago, the one at Port McNicoll in particular, they are still state of the art in terms of their ability to unload large volumes of grain and load it onto rail cars in very short order.
It is interesting to note that of all the witnesses who appeared before the legislative committee, not one agreed with the withdrawal of the legislation. Yet, when the minister appeared before the committee he stated: "Well, the wheat still moved last year." What was not considered was the fact that it had to move at a price which resulted in a lower price to the producer through the pooling system. This impact, when spread through the whole system, is very large. To top it all off, the government announced that the initial payment prices for wheat for this year at approximately $115 per tonne.
So again, the withdrawal of the legislation has been another kick in the pants to producers who are already down with returns that will not result in a profit on investment, management, and risk. The government is withdrawing it without a full examination of the widespread impact it is going to have on our total Canadian economy.
Once those Bay Port elevators are demolished, they will be gone for all time. Consequently, we have to move very quickly. Delaying the implementation of this bill
Government Orders
until 1995 may put a hold on that demolition and put the legislation back into place to enable us to move our product into export position, particularly to supply the Caribbean market in the winter months. That market has been held by Canada to a large extent for many years.
The Ontario Wheat Board alone moved between 150,000 to 200,000 tonnes under this legislation. That amount of product moving through the Atlantic seaports ensured the viability of those port elevators and also the flour mills.
One of the witnesses pointed out that, without CP Rail's main line which services the Saint John grain elevator, "not only the grain elevator would be finished but also many of the facilities that move product in and out of the port of Saint John".
This is another one of the domino impacts of the withdrawal of the at and east legislation. It will put additional hardships on the port of Saint John. Without the movement of grain through it, it may no longer be a viable port. Port officials pointed out that they intend to mothball their grain elevator. Anyone with any experience at all in the industry will know that an elevator can only stay in mothballs for approximately two to three years before it deteriorates to the point where it is no longer a serviceable working grain elevator.
Consequently, the port authorities are quite correct when they point out that this could very well be the death knell for the port of Saint John which has been exporting wheat for a couple of hundred years.
The port of Halifax and its flour mills are also very upset and concerned about the end of the at and east legislation. With these amendments before us today we are responding to their request to keep it operational, not only to maintain its status as a viable port but on behalf of the flour mills there which produce flour for export as well as domestic use.
Therefore, I am putting forward these amendments to delay the demise of at and east programs until 1995. If the government is sincere about coming up with alternative programs, perhaps this will allow it the opportunity to do that and to undo the damage done by the withdrawal of this legislation in the budget of April, 1989.

June 5, 1990
Government Orders
A tremendous number of jobs have been lost. In addition to those lost in rail transportation, there have been jobs lost in the elevators in the Bay Ports on Georgian Bay, and in Saint John and Halifax. There will also be jobs lost if the flour mills are forced to close.
The United States has indicated its intention to subsidize the export of about 3 million tonnes of flour this year. Their Export Enhancement Program is undermining the price of wheat on the world markets. The price of wheat does not reflect that world supplies are at the lowest level since 1971 to 1973. Yet, we in Canada are having to bear the brunt of that, not only with the lowering of world prices but also as a result of the government withdrawing the programs that made this a viable industry in Atlantic Canada, central Canada, and the eastern prairies.
Therefore, I urge the House to support this amendment to assist the people across Canada and maintain the flows of product that we have been accustomed to in the past.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak in favour of this motion. It is clear through the work of the legislative committee on this bill that the government has not done a proper study of the impact of this legislation, it has not looked at what will be the full implications not only for the maritimes but for the whole grain industry in this country.
We had a number of groups before our committee, including the Minister of Transport and representatives from the Department of Transport. It was very clear when they were before this committee that they had not done a full evaluation of the reports that had been in front of them. They said unequivocally, in fact, that there had been no reports that were unfavourable to the government's position.
In fact, as has been said many times before, as early as 1985 the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission put an alternative before this government. It said that the at and east must be changed, that the at and east was not adequate as it was and that there should be some changes, that although the ultimate purpose it was serving was valuable it was actually costing the government too much money. It put a proposal in front of the
government, not once but twice in 1985. Upon asking the departmental representatives what sort of evaluation they had done on it, they admitted that they had taken only a very cursory look at it and in fact they had not even had the courtesy to respond fully to the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission.
The fact is that the removal of this program is going to have some wide implications. That has been very clear. We had Dover Flour Mills before our committee. It is the only flour mill on the Atlantic seaboard. To make things clear, this bill is affecting Dover Flour Mills. Dover Flour Mills has no intention of shutting down. It is a very efficient mill and should be commended for the work it is doing to maintain that mill in Atlantic Canada. But as a result of this bill it has lost a commercial export market. Its domestic market is still doing very well but it has lost a commercial export market. Its profits have been eroding and it does rely on the Halifax elevator remaining open in order for it to remain open.
The loss of the at and east, combined with the loss of the feed freight assistance on mill feeds, has had a major impact on the whole agriculture industry in the maritimes. When the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission was before the committee it highlighted again the fact that it was going to cost Atlantic Canada $27 million and hundreds of jobs and that it was going to have an impact on diversification in the maritimes.
We heard from people in the agricultural industry who indicated that the loss of the Halifax elevator would have a devastating effect on the whole livestock and poultry industry in the maritimes.
The city of Saint John was before the committee and outlined some other concerns. The fact that the Saint John elevator has already closed has cost a number of jobs in that city. The line that was used to haul grain to Saint John is becoming more and more questionable. We in the west have experienced rail line abandonment for some time and the maritimes are now starting to experience that same problem. If that line to Saint John is removed, and it is becoming less viable for the railway, it will have a major impact on the city of Saint John.
The port of Halifax appeared before the committee and expressed similar concerns about the loss of the at and east program and the possible closure of the Halifax elevator.
June 5, 1990

The longshoremen appeared before us. They are very concerned because their workers are losing jobs. They have workers with families who are trying to make ends meet who simply do not have work. It is not because they do not want to work, it is not because they are not ready to work, it is simply because the jobs have disappeared because this government, without thinking, has removed a program and is affecting the livelihood of many people in Atlantic Canada.
The Canadian Wheat Board was before us and said that the loss of the ports of Halifax and Saint John will mean the loss of the only ice-free ports on the Atlantic seaboard. If those ports are lost it could mean the loss of sales. As the representative from the Canadian Wheat Board indicated, countries with warm climates and warm waters do not want to go up the St. Lawrence during the winter to the St. Lawrence River ports because they do not want to deal with the ice. In fact, they like the idea of coming to an ice-free port because they are not used to dealing with ice and they do not want to deal with it. If they have the choice of going to an ice-free port or dealing with the St. Lawrence River, they may well go somewhere else.
The Canadian Wheat Board has expressed that the loss of these ports takes away one marketing element that it uses. As we know, this country needs all the help it can get in marketing grain. The Canadian Wheat Board, which is an institution that has done wonders for the Canadian grain industry needs all the help it can get.
The issue boils down to the elevators at Saint John and Halifax. The question that must be asked is if the government is going to remove this program what is it going to put in its place? It has offered nothing. It did not listen to what the APTC had to say. It has offered nothing to put in its place.
I have found this experience very frustrating because the government, despite being hit over the head with information, ignored it and bullheadedly moved ahead with its agenda, which is not always clear to all Canadians.
One thing that was satisfying was that the work we in the New Democratic Party and others have done on this
Government Orders
bill has forced the government to recognize the devastating impact that this bill is going to have. As a result, it has appointed a study to look at the future viability of the elevators at the ports of Halifax and Saint John.
It is great that the government is concerned about the elevators at Halifax and Saint John. It is too bad that it would not have been interested about 18 months ago and looked at some real alternatives to this program so that today, instead of debating the demise of the elevator at Saint John and the potential closure of the elevator at Halifax, we could be debating the very logical and well thought out proposal put forth by the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission. A vast majority in each party in this House would favour that sort of proposal. Instead, the government is being bullheaded and is going ahead without any real thought for the consequences of its action.
It is only the work of members of this party, the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission and others, that has forced this government to realize that the passage of this bill will have a devastating impact on regional development. The promotion of agriculture in Atlantic Canada is important to its economy. At least we got the government to recognize that. It is really sad that the Saint John elevator is already closed. By the time this study is finished Halifax may be closed. Everything is in limbo. Everything is up in the air.
I want to remind the government that we have to keep in mind that regional development is an important factor in this country. It has been a factor since Confederation. If the government is not going to consider regional development, if it is going to consider only the bottom line, we are going to have problems in Atlantic Canada, Saskatchewan and other regions of the country that do not have a great population base but are part of this Confederation and deserve the consideration of this government.
In closing, I would like to remind the government that it has a duty to all regions of this country to make sure that there is a fair opportunity for all, to make sure that every Canadian, no matter where he or she may live in this country, has the opportunity to work, to raise a family, to make a living and to live in a way that is satisfactory to all of us in Canada.

June 5, 1990
Government Orders


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I also want to contribute to this debate and I am not happy to do so. Frankly, it is a little embarrassing.
I listened very attentively to the remarks of the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex in explaining his amendments. For members on all sides who do not appreciate the history of Bill C-26 and the effect of the amendments, what the hon. member for Lambton- Middlesex said in very even, objective, non-provocative prose is absolutely correct. The member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, who a little younger and a little more partisan, got pejorative. He said things that could excite one and perhaps the facts would cause one to get excited. I certainly do not take exception to anything he said.
That is the dilemma that this member and, frankly, all Atlantic members are in. Bill C-26 is a retroactive piece of legislation which I guarantee 90 per cent of the members in this House do not even pretend to understand. It is about something that we have heard of from time to time, the at and east. It is to do with the compensatory rates at and east of the port of Buffalo. I do not have all of my file here, but I was here in the opposition when a fellow called Pickersgill, whose name is now used in the great constitutional debate, spoke on something called the National Transportation Act which set up the Canadian Transport Commission. He became the first chairman of that commission. I remember him here in the front row of this House explaining the fundamental implications of the National Transportation Act on the Canadian Transport Commission.
People think he comes from Newfoundland. He was the member for Bonavista-Twillingate but he was born and grew up in Manitoba. He became the private secretary to Mackenzie King. That was really his interesting contribution to the politics of this country long before he came out of retirement and has been vocal in certain issues that are presently confronting our First Ministers at the Conference Centre.
Mr. Pickersgill, the Minister of Transport at the time, right in that debate said that the National Transportation Act will do many things and he appeared before the committee. We have written into it a little clause, Bill C-26, a simple little amendment to the Railway Act
which in effect helps to pay for the export of flour and grain through Atlantic ports. It helps to pay by giving the difference between the compensatory rate and a rate frozen at that time. The history has been that this is a subsidy of somewhere between $25 million and $30 million without taking into account all the multiplier effects and benefits to the ports which the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex mentioned and/or the ports of Atlantic Canada, the elevators and the employment there too.
I have to restrain myself because I am very bothered and somewhat embarrassed that we are proceeding with this bill when even government members admit now that the Department of Agriculture is going to have a study of the Halifax and Saint John ports to assess, through the representatives of the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission and Grains 2000, what effect the removal of this subsidy is going to have on Atlantic Canada. As has been mentioned here already, the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission, knowing full well that there might have been more economical ways to get export flour and grain off-shore, years ago suggested changes to the Railway Act.
My problem and I would think the problem of any Atlantic Canadian member is that since 1985, the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission in a very unrestrained, unprovocative way has been in communication with the Department of Transport and/or the Department of Agriculture on something called offsets. They have said: "Look, we will agree. We understand the need to change the program because times have moved on. If there are offsets, then we really cannot fight too hard the removal or change in the at and east subsidy."
When the last program was brought before the Standing Committee on Transportation in, I think, February of this year, the suggested change was going to be about $10 million. In effect, it said: "Give us $10 million and we can still make sure we have the export of flour and grain at the ports of Halifax and Saint John. All the ports and elevators along the way will stay in operation." The problem now is that while the bill has the very invidious retroactive effect of July 1989, the government admits through a press release of May 18 that it is going to have a study.
June 5, 1990

Without getting too provocative at this stage in terms of all that has happened with at and east and all the offsets, the amendment of the hon. member for Lamb-ton-Middlesex to put this off until 1995 would give time for all the studies that should have been made before the decision to cut the subsidy.
The only real way to get to members in the House and the bureaucracy-hopefully many of them are watching this debate-is this. What happened is that some bureaucrat in the Department of Finance who was looking for fiscal control and subsidy reduction picked on something that no one really understands.
Mr. Speaker, I know you hail from west of the lakes. You have that great bread basket of grain between the lakes and Alberta. Then, you go into the lowlands of Alberta where they grow grain and raise cattle. There are the Rockies, which are beautiful. The country is beautiful.
In a budget bill, without consultation with affected parties, a Minister of Finance would not dare to attack, reduce and/or eliminate-which is what is being done with at and east-the Western Grain Transportation Act. The only way to put this into perspective is to state that this is our mini "western grain transportation act" in Atlantic Canada. It has been there for more than 20-some years.
Why should we accept this quietly as fiscal control and deficit reduction when there is another subsidy program for western grain going to Thunder Bay and in particular to the port of Vancouver? Nothing is being done about that, except that it is being studied. At least it is being studied. Of course, under the act it has to be studied before the government moves. There may be veiy necessary changes made.
Anyone involved in that debate knows there has been a continual question of whether the money should go to the railways or to the farmers. At least it is being studied.
My time is pretty well up. We are moving retroactively with this bill. This amendment will just delay the matter for two years while all the studies are being completed. It should have started anyway.
Certainly, I fully support the amendment and hope that other members will too. Quite frankly, it fits in with what the government is thinking. It is not a great defiance of a government. We should sometimes have cross court and cross aisle areas of concern where
Government Orders
members from a region can join together. The easy thing is for a member to avoid the vote on this measure. As members know, one takes parliamentary flu from time to time to avoid a vote on a matter of general interest where perhaps one is not settled in his or her mind. On something that is so precise, that so affects Atlantic Canada and also transportation, with which I am somewhat involved, I cannot stay silent on this bill. I support the amendment and certainly intend to vote for it.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, if you would like, I would be happy to sit down and allow my colleague, the hon. member for Annapolis Valley- Hants, to carry on for a while because he certainly made a lot of sense.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: No.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: In any case, this is not a joking matter. It is a matter of very serious concern to Atlantic Canadians. Before the smoke clears, it will be a matter of very serious concern to this government, particularly members on the government side from Atlantic Canada who have not stood up and fought against this silliness. In fact, it may even be more cynical than that, it may be the punishment that this government wants to subject upon Atlantic Canadians because of the way they voted in the last election.
I had the opportunity to speak on second reading of this bill some months ago. I simply want to reiterate some of what has been said with regard to the importance of the at and east to Atlantic Canada. We had two grain elevators in Atlantic Canada, one of which has now been mothballed because of the action of this government with this legislation. We have one elevator left in Halifax. It is the only source of flour milled in Atlantic Canada. Without it, it is at least highly unlikely that there will be any milling of flour in Atlantic Canada.
The livestock industry in Atlantic Canada is vital to the agricultural sector. Without elevators or access to those elevators for western grain, it is highly unlikely that the beef and dairy industry will remain as we know it in Atlantic Canada. We do not yet have sufficient grain productivity in Atlantic Canada to meet our needs. I am talking about feed grains, not just flour. The government is hitting us with a double whammy. Not only is it going to destroy our elevators and flour milling operations, but

June 5, 1990
Government Orders
it will very likely destroy the feed grains production in Atlantic Canada and perhaps the beef and dairy industry.
There are very heavy implications, yet this government took absolutely no notice of those implications in its head-long and foolish attempt to do more of its cost cutting in the area of Canada where the last thing we need is cost cutting.
I want to read a small quote. This was said before the committee by Mr. Keith Russell, Director of Atlantic Farmers Council. He said: "Mr. Chairman, the organization I represent is a co-ordinating regional organization representing the four provincial federations of agriculture and the agricultural co-operatives in Atlantic Canada. As such, we can speak for more than 80 per cent of the livestock and poultry producers in the Atlantic region which is an industry with a farm gate value of $500 million in 1989."
Mr. Speaker, $500 million is a lot of money to Atlantic Canadians. That might not seem too much to Ontario or some of the other industrialized areas, but $500 million is vital in Atlantic Canada. It is even more vital now that this government has decided to cut back on its regional development efforts and on other subsidies to Atlantic Canada.
I want to read another quote: "I am told that the elimination of this subsidy could mean a loss to Canada of something in the order of $28 million worth of value-added processing activities or a total economic spin-off of something in the order of $65 million."
That statement was made in this House on March 29, 1976, by none other than our esteemed Deputy Prime Minister, who ought to know something about grain production, farming and the terrible disservice that this proposed legislation will do to Atlantic Canada. I am making a plea today to this government. If it has any sense of propriety left, if it has any sense of fairness left, if it has any thought at all for Atlantic Canada, it should withdraw this stupidity and go back to what we had in terms of elevators and in terms of grain movement in this country and stop trying to destroy the grain, poultry, livestock and flour industries in Atlantic Canada.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise for a few moments this afternoon to address Bill C-26, which would eliminate the at and east grain subsidy.
Some members may wonder why somebody from the mountains of British Columbia is speaking on this subject. Quite frankly, my own area of the Kootenays was brought into Canada by a contract with the people and the Government of Canada at the time of a strong secession movement. The West Kootenays were going to follow the normal flow of our economics and were seriously considering joining with Spokane and Washington state. There was an agreement to build the Crow's Nest railway and to have certain rates apply in order to keep us as a part of this country so that we could make our contribution to this act of political will that was and still is called Canada.
This is not a dissimilar sort of situation. Once again we see this government with its dogmatic theology of the private market that, come hell or high water, is determined to let loose those private economic forces to do what they will regardless of the impact on the regions of this country and the very fabric of this nation.
To briefly explain to anybody who happens to be listening, Bill C-26, the at and east freight assistance program, pays a subsidy to the railways on export grain and flour moving by specified routes through eastern Canadian ports. The rates paid by the shipper have been frozen since 1960 with respect to export grain and 1966 with respect to flour.
At the next stage in this discussion my colleagues in the New Democratic Party will be moving an amendment to this bill to set the freight rates for grain and flour shipments to Halifax and Saint John, New Brunswick at 5 per cent higher than the rate for shipments to Quebec City. This is similar in effect to a proposal made by the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission. The idea is reducing the cost of the program while ensuring the ports of Halifax and Saint John remain competitive.
The amendment currently before us on behalf of our colleagues in the Liberal Party is calling for the at and east to be left as is. It puts me in mind of the Liberal attitude to almost everything else around here, which seems to be: "Don't touch a thing, don't make a suggestion, feel no sense of responsibility to do something to bring costs a little more in line, don't have any innovative proposals or compromise proposals, just say
June 5, 1990

no". That attitude is as unjustifiable in this case as it is in the case of the goods and services tax. If people want to say no, they have some responsibility to come up with some alternatives. My New Democratic Party colleagues will do that later in this debate.
Back in the real world outside this Chamber, just what is happening? Since the at and east subsidy ended on January 31 due to one of the provisions of the bill which ends it retroactively, the grain elevator at Saint John, New Brunswick closed on February 28 with a loss of 90 jobs. The elevator in Halifax is in trouble and may be forced to close. The closure of the Halifax elevator will affect the economy of the Atlantic region in several ways.
First, the Halifax elevator plays a vital role as a grain storage facility. Without it Dover Flour Mills, the only flour mill in Atlantic Canada, would probably be forced to close.
Second, without the Halifax elevator shipping feed grains by lake vessel through the port of Halifax, the only competitive alternative to rail transport, would no longer be available. Based on past experience this would result in an increase in the rail rates for domestic feed grains that livestock and poultry producers in the maritimes depend on.
Third, local breweries will face similar problems as they will no longer be able to use water transport for malt barley.
Closure of the grain elevators alone will result in the loss of 573 jobs at the ports of Halifax and Saint John. In Saint John 90 jobs; Halifax, 483 jobs. Another 250 indirect jobs may be lost as well. The closure of Dover Flour Mills would result in another 45 jobs being lost and the loss of a local market for producers of milling wheat.
Livestock and poultry producers in the maritimes are already at a disadvantage when competing with Ontario and Quebec producers. In the opinion of the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission any feed cost increases could place those industries in jeopardy.
What has been the government's response? In response to political pressure from many sectors, including the New Democratic Party but certainly not solely-a lot of people have been involved, particularly many from
Government Orders
Atlantic Canada-the Deputy Prime Minister and the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board announced on May 16 that Agriculture Canada would conduct a study on the future of the grain elevators in the Atlantic region. The study will look at the Halifax elevator, the Saint John elevator, a proposed elevator in Summerside, and how they can be made more viable.
When he appeared before the committee on May 30, the Minister of Transport stated that the alternatives to eliminating the at and east put forward by the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission had not been studied. They had not even been studied and still we are getting this legislation in spite of the fact that they had been received over a year ago. He also refused to commit the government to any measures to offset the effects of cancelling the at and east.
There is also an impact on western Canada if this bill should go ahead. The loss of the at and east will mean higher freight rates for western Canada in grain, and flour mills outside central Canada will be hard hit because they will no longer be able to take advantage of the program to ship their flour.
At a time when we have the first ministers and the Prime Minister meeting just a few blocks away to tiy to salvage something of this dream called Canada-this active political will from the last century called Canada-it simply does not make sense for us to pretend that this country was ever a "natural economic unit".
This nation was built in defiance of all economic reality based on the classic definitions of a market economy and how it works. Hopefully some day, with changing demographics and population, it will be easier to service all our parts and give us all a chance at a good and productive life without subsidies.
However, you cannot take a small number of people spread over 4,000 miles or 5,000 miles in a narrow ribbon and expect to operate in the same way as if you were shipping from Chicago to New York, both major population areas. That is not what this country is about.
It appears that this is simply one more action of a government which, whether it is dealing with Canada Post or dismantling the social safety net with the scrap-

June 5, 1990
Government Orders
ping of unemployment insurance, the ending of VIA Rail facilities, or the dismantling of the Crow rate without anything viable to take its place, is determined to put doctrine before reality and to put blind faith in Friedma-nite economics ahead of the welfare and the survival of this nation. There is too much at stake with all the discussion going on today, as I said, just a few blocks away.
It is about time we realized that there is more to this country than a dollar and cent sign. We believe we can build and maintain a country that is worthwhile living in, that has room for some compassion, and that believes not only in equality but that there ought to be more equal treatment of all Canadians and the several regions that make up this country.
We will support this amendment by the Liberal Party, even though it offers nothing new. We will be proposing our own amendment today, depending perhaps on how the debate goes, in order to try to bring some kind of modification and keep the basic system alive while adjusting to some current economic realities.
This is an important bill, probably much more important than the public recognizes. The issues central to this bill are the same issues that are central to the existence and the survival of Canada. That is why we will oppose the bill, that is why we will support any amendment that attempts to stop it, and that is why we will be proposing our own suggestions to keep this program alive, to keep these communities alive, to keep the regions alive, and to keep Canada alive.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise again to participate in the debate, this time at report stage of Bill C-26, the at and east legislation.
When I spoke the last time I clearly articulated, after much research and listening to a lot of people in my region, the economic impact of the loss of the at and east on the ports of Halifax and Saint John. In addition, a tremendous economic dislocation will take place in the agricultural industry and related shipping industries in the port of Halifax and the port of Saint John.
I was here today to listen to the remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Annapolis Valley- Hants. It would do well for all members of this place to sit down and listen to a member of his stature when he
speaks on such issues and when he appeals to the House for some cross the centre aisle exchange when bills are bad bills and affect people across this country negatively.
I was exceptionally happy to see him holding firm to the position he espoused in the House the last time he spoke on this bill. Unfortunately he was not here for the vote that day. I hope he will be here for the vote today, because what he said is that this government has missed the mark when it comes to dealing with the at and east bill. More important, I believe he said that he would be supporting the amendments we are currently debating because they are good amendments.
Since the government introduced the regulations which would have done away with the at and east subsidy in Atlantic Canada in June 1989, the government has been so hell-bent on going through with its proposals, no matter how badly flawed they are and no matter where and how poignant the responses are in the communities affected, that it just steamrolls whenever it can.
When I participated in debate the last time, my hon. colleague from Halifax West took exception to the fact that I thought his comments expressed the certainty this bill would pass anyway so let us just deal with the consequences. I did not hold that view then and I certainly do not hold it now. This is not a fait accompli. This is a parliamentary democracy and in a parliamentary democracy the government introduces legislation.
After full and thorough debate the bill goes into committee and the committee reports. Hopefully, if the bill is flawed, it will be amended to make it better legislation. The hon. member for Halifax West does not particularly like the fact that government legislation might be flawed and that even members on his own side of the House can agree with the amendments that have been put forward by my colleague. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants who happens to be the chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport agrees.
The effect of this amendment is basically to rescue the government. In 1985 the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission sent some unsolicited proposals to the government because it heard rumours that the at and east legislation was going to be gutted and that the subsidy would be done away with. Being responsible and trying to ensure that its industry was not terribly dislo-
June 5, 1990

cated by such an action, it sent some information to the government about some potential offsets.
When the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants spoke last, just a few weeks ago, he indicated that five years later the government had not even responded to the submission from the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission. It talked about possible offsets for the at and east. Indeed, on February 19, the Commission slightly revised what it had given to the government in 1985 and sent it in. At the time he spoke about April 30, the government still had not responded.
We went into committee and we heard a lot of individuals during the proceedings. One of the things that we found surprising was that the industry members who were most affected had no question about the negative impact that was going to take place with the sudden loss of the at and east legislation without any consultation by the federal government.
The federal government did not come in and say: "Look, we are rethinking our national transportation policies, and we think that because the at and east is flawed it must change or go." It did not say that. What the government did was come in and say: "It is gone." The hon. member for Halifax West said it best. He said: "It is a fait accompli. Whatever this government wants, it gets." That is what was said. It is in Hansard. "It is a fait accompli." If the government wants it, the government gets it.
The effect of these amendments is to try to rescue the government. What the government did was show government at its worst: it came in with legislation that is fundamentally flawed. It has not undergone the test of consultation with the industry sectors affected, and now it is trying to play catch-up.
It was pretty clear. During the committee hearings I asked Mr. Armitage from the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission: "Do you believe the loss of the at and east and the resulting traffic loss may have an impact on the viability of the main line of CN?" In his response, which is in the Minutes and Evidence of Proceedings, he said: "I do not think it is going to jeopardize the line, but it will certainly have an impact on the viability of that line."
Government Orders
We talked to Mr. Doering from Dover Mills and asked him whether he was consulted prior to the loss of the at and east. Dover Mills is the only flour mill in eastern Canada. Mr. Doering said: "In terms of what it has done for Dover Mills, first of all were we consulted? No, the industry was not consulted."
I asked Mr. Russell from the Maritime Farmers' Union specifically, because of the lack of consultation and the sudden withdrawal on July 15,1989 of the at and east regulations, what it would do. I said: "What is it going to do to the grain elevator in Halifax?" We already know that the grain elevator in Saint John has had to close with the resultant loss of jobs and moneys from the local economy there. I said: "Will there be an effect on the agricultural industry in Atlantic Canada?" He said: "I guess the breaking point for us would be if the situation reached the point where the Halifax elevator had to close. It would be Doomsday for us."
Mr. Speaker, 65 per cent of traffic through the very elevator in Halifax, which Mr. Russell says if closed would spell Doomsday for the agricultural industry in Atlantic Canada, is as a result of the at and east legislation and subsidy. What does the government do when it gets itself caught in the wringer-and I will not say any more than that in this place-it comes out with a study. It came out, I believe sometime in March, with a press release. After five years from the point in time that the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission stated that if this was going to be eliminated they would have to have some offsets and they would be a leader in this case. Five years after, in an effort of damage control, we have a news release from the Communications Branch of Agriculture Canada which states that we are now going to study it. It states that the study will address concerns about the future of grain handling facilities in the Atlantic region.
This is certainly what you call closing the bam door after you have let the horse out. We heard from witness after witness at the committee that by the time the government has decided to study it, we have already had untold economic devastation in Atlantic Canada. We have already had a grain elevator close in Saint John. We have already lost at least $15 million from the Port of Halifax economy as a result of what it has done.

June 5, 1990
Government Orders
We heard from Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell says that if the Halifax grain terminal closes the agricultural industry will be put on its knees, and this all after the fact. The government states that it is going to study the impact. It is a little bit of face saving. It is trying to recover some of the negative publicity that it is getting from the sectors down there that are being devastated by this shortsighted piece of legislation.
My colleague has brought forward the three amendments that we are debating today. The effect of the amendments is to further save the government from its own devices, from its own incompetence in this particular case. The effect of the amendments is to make sure that the at and east grain subsidy is still in place for the next five years, so that the government has a chance to do what it should have done back in 1985 when the letter first went in with the proposals from the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Council, and that is to sit down and study the offsets.
It is not good enough, almost a year after it has cut the subsidy, to say that now it will look at the economic consequences. We know what they are. They are devastating. Once a flour mill or a grain terminal closes, or a farmer goes out of business in Atlantic Canada because he does not have access to the same-priced feed, it is too late six months after that to come and say, "My goodness, boys, we made a mistake. We should have put the offsets in before we took the subsidy away".
The other thing that is particular galling to me as a member from Atlantic Canada is that this government is still absolutely hell-bent, whenever it wants to cut, to snip down east first. I guess it wants to see whether, after all the cuts, we still have any blood left in us.
In effect, by putting this at and east legislation through, the government has cut over $40 million. That sounds like a lot of money. The government said it had to get rid of subsidies in the interest of deficit reduction and better management. While I am not suggesting that it should impose cuts elsewhere, it did not treat the rest of the country and the rest of the transportation infrastructure the same way. It did not mention once that it was going to do anything with the Western Grain Transportation Act which has subsidized the movement of grains in the western part of Canada to the tune of over $860 million. Once again, we from the east have to bear the brunt of this government's cuts.
In conclusion, I would urge those from the other side of this House who have listened to the impassioned plea of the Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants to do the right thing for once and vote in favour of these amendments or to defeat this bill.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise and speak for a few minutes on the report stage of Bill C-26, an Act to amend the Railway Act.
I rise principally in support of my colleague, the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex, who knows infinitely more about this subject than I do and than do most members of this House. As a matter of fact, I would go so far as to say that he knows a fair amount more about it than the man who happens to be current minister responsible for this bill.
My colleague, the hon. member for Lambton- Middlesex was all too briefly Minister of Agriculture. Had he been able to stay there longer, this entire business would be in much better shape than it is in today.
I sense that some of the government members are rousing themselves to the importance of this particular bill, and that is encouraging. I say to my friends opposite that they would do well to have a look at today's Order Paper and to read the good sense which is embodied in the three amendments put forward by my friend from Lambton-Middlesex, the essence of which would be to delay this entire bill.
In the circumstances, it is a very good idea that we at least put this legislation on hold for four or five years. After all, let us keep in mind that in the last two or three weeks the government itself has seen fit to launch a study. Why prejudge the results of that study by acting precipitously here at this particular time? Why not follow the advice of my friend, the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex, and put this whole proposal on hold, at least until we hear the results of the study, but more to the point until 1995.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: The member will realize that after we hear the study and there is some burning and pressing reason to move it forward, it is a very easy matter to bring a bill such as this back into the House. That is all these amendments would do today and I cannot see anybody wanting to vote against these three very sensible amendments.
June 5, 1990

The hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants takes the right view. If more people on that side listened to him more often they would be in a lot fewer problems than they are there these days. The amendments would simply delay the removal of this program until 1995. That would assist the organizations concerned that are dependent upon rail rates to plan rational alternative routes and methods to export grain and flour in order to maintain both an equitable return and to maintain their competitiveness in the international market. We all know that the bill as it stands now would adversely affect both the returns of the producers and adversely affect their international competitiveness.
Where is the compassion of the government? For example, government members keep telling us that when the goods and services tax is implemented the government is going to help everybody. I happen to doubt that, but that is another debate for another time. I use it by way of example to show that if this government is so seized with helping people, it has here a golden opportunity to help some people maintain their position as producers and maintain their position of competitiveness internationally. It can do it with one stroke of the pen, by simply withdrawing this crazy bill altogether. But if it does not want to do that, it could have its cake and eat it too by legislating in accordance with the bill but putting it on hold until 1995.
These amendments put forward by my friend, the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex would have the effect of allowing the government some time to develop the alternative programs it has announced for the ports of Saint John and Halifax, rather than abandoning these ports and the livelihood of the individuals affected by the removal of these rail rates while it determines what it ultimately plans to do.
These amendments would also give the government an opportunity to be consistent with the testimony of witnesses who appeared before the legislative committee during committee stage. Witnesses stated that there may be inefficiencies in this legislation but urged, in essence, that rather than eliminating the program and then assisting in an ad hoc manner certain parts of the puzzle, it would have made more sense to have the alternative
Government Orders
programs for all groups affected in place before eliminating the existing programs.
Since that makes very good sense one must ask why the government persists in pushing this legislation through before the time is ripe?
It is worth reviewing again the process that we go through in this House to ensure that our legislation is good legislation which serves the common good. We have had first reading and second reading of this bill, after which, it went to a legislative committee. We are now, in effect, debating the report of that committee. At this stage we are entertaining amendments which have come forward as a result of the testimony of witnesses before the committee. In short, at this stage we ought to be deciding whether the legislation is no good at all, whether it is perfect as is, or whether we must find ways to improve it.
My colleague, the hon. member for Lambton- Middlesex has found two or three ways in which this legislation, as bad as it is, could be salvaged and be improved upon, or at least a way in which we could buy some time for the people who are going to be adversely affected if this bill passes unamended.
Therefore, we must ask why the government persists in doing something like this, having been told the havoc it will create and the damage it will cost in economic terms for a lot of people across this country. That is the question.
The answer lies in this almost glazed over messianic zeal that we get from those members on so many initiatives these days, whether it is on the goods and services tax, closing of rural post offices, or the attacking of the rural way of life generally. That is an issue that I could talk long and hard about. It shows that we have a government that has stopped listening to the Canadian people and one of the sad results of that is that we are getting some very bad legislation in this Parliament.
Any draft bill is subject to the whim of the drafter. That is why we have this process in this House, so that by scrutiny in committee and in this chamber we can find the flaws in the legislation and cure those flaws. We can nip them in the bud, before they are perpetrated in legislation and before they affect the lives of people across this country. That process breaks down completely if there are people who are not listening any more. Someone once said that none is so deaf as he who will not hear. That is what we have on our hands right now, a government that will not hear. The government has stopped listening to the Canadian people whether on the

June 5, 1990
Government Orders
issue of this bill, the goods and services tax, the closing of rural post offices, or so many other issues that I could mention if I had the time.
According to your signal, for which I thank you, Mr. Speaker, I see that my time has run out.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to say a few words at the report stage on Bill C-26, an act to amend the Railway Act.
With regard to the at and east rate, Subsection 281(2) of the Railway Act reads as follows:
(2) For the purpose of encouraging the continued use of the Eastern ports for the export of grain and flour,
(a)	rates for grain moving in bulk for export to any Eastern port from any inland point over any line of a railway company subject to thejurisdiction of Parliament shall be maintained at the level of rates applying on November 30, 1960 to the movement of that grain to Eastern ports; and
(b)	rates on flour moving for export to an Eastern port from any inland point over any line of a railway company subject to the jurisdiction of Parliament shall be maintained at the level of rates applying on September 30, 1966 to the movement of that flour to Eastern ports.
Therefore, we are really talking about grain being maintained at the 1960 level and flour being maintained at the 1966 level. The impact of this is not only on western grain producers shipping to European, Mediterranean, and North African customers. There is also a spin-off advantage for the local grain producers in the Atlantic ports of Saint John and Halifax.
There is an advantage for western producers of grain, wheat and barley, as well as oilseed crops. They are facing a serious drop in income this year. Even with the recent adjustments in net-farm income, Saskatchewan goes from a minus $9 million net-farm income this year to minus $116 million, which is a drop of 87 per cent.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if you, as Speaker, with the very large special allowances provided to Speakers had to suffer an 87 per cent reduction in your income, it would practically destroy the financial and fiscal integrity of
your whole operation, or for that matter, the operation of any other hon. member of the House.
Yet, at a time when farmers in Saskatchewan are facing a loss in net-farm income of 87 per cent in this calendar year, the government is removing its support program of the at and east rate which amounts to some $50 million. It is inconceivable that, at a time when we are facing the most outrageous international trade war between the United States of America and the European Economic Community for those markets for grain around the world, we are reducing our export support programs for grain. In fact, the United States has increased its support programs for exports of wheat and a whole range of agricultural commodities from some $600 million last year to $900 million this year. It is subsidizing wheat sales at the rate of $20 to $40 a ton.
At the same time, we are removing an integral support program for our wheat producers in western Canada to ship grain at the 1960 rate for wheat, barley and oats, and moving that up to the current day rate. The impact will be really tremendous, not only for those producers, but for Atlantic Canada in total and those grain elevators in the Great Lakes ports in the area around Georgian Bay.
Our complaint is that, at a time when we are facing a very serious trade war in agriculture commodities, we are unilaterally disarming. The Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence say that we have to maintain our support and our strength for NATO, although they have not actually done that. Surely, if that is important in a military context, then it is important in a trade context that we do not unilaterally disarm our farmers and our producers of grain at such a time. That is essentially what we have done.
In his 1989 budget, the Minister of Finance removed support programs for Canadian agriculture producers of about $500 million. Some of those budget cuts did not actually trigger in until January 1, 1990. However, the at and east rate, which provided some $50 million of support, was triggered last year. That amount of support and encouragement for export of our chief agriculture exports, wheat and oilseeds, was triggered last year. But that is only one. What has to be understood is that there
June 5, 1990

is a whole range of programs: the at and east rate; a reduction in crop insurance in that 1989 budget of $200 million; a reduction in the rail line rehabilitation program of some $50 million; and a reduction in the gas tax rebate.
What does the gas tax rebate mean? Last week, I was talking to a group of grain producers in the southeastern part of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Some of those producers were talking in terms of a fuel tax rebate loss of some $3,000.
The government talks about its grand schemes of a $500 million program to support western agriculture while it glibly overlooks that one year earlier in April, 1989 it reduced support programs to Canadian farmers by exactly $500 million. Essentially it is refunding, with a grand sweep of the pen, support programs. This at and east rate, Bill C-26, is to implement the reduction the government made in 1989.
I believe that the amendment that the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex has introduced into the House is a good amendment, because the government obviously did not know what it was doing. A few weeks ago, it announced that it was going to put in place a special commission to investigate how to support agriculture because it was removing this support to the grain elevators and the at and east rate to Atlantic Canada. Surely, delaying the removal of this rate for five years would allow the government an opportunity to find out what it is going to do to support agriculture as a result of this ill-conceived project to remove the at and east rate.
I would hope that hon. members, especially on the government side, would look very closely at the hon. member's amendment for the at and east rate, so that it would not be implemented for five years. Perhaps by that time, the government either will be out of office or will know what it is doing with this ill-conceived removal of the at and east rate as proposed under Bill C-26.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to debate Motion No. 1 which would have the effect of delaying this particular action to do away with the at and east rates until April 1, 1995.
This motion makes some sense, given the recent actions by the government in a couple of instances when it has indicated that it is prepared to restudy this issue.
Government Orders
That leaves the impression that the budgetary move to cancel the at and east rates without any discussion has created some problems which the government is apparently now talking about redressing.
For instance, on May 16, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds announced that the federal Department of Agriculture would conduct a study on the future of the grain elevators in the Atlantic region. The study will look at the Halifax elevator, the Saint John elevator, a proposed elevator in Summerside, and how they can be made viable. There is not much point in having such a study, if there is no method or means of getting the grain to those elevators. Therefore, it makes eminent good sense to delay the implementation of this government proposal to cease the movement of grains in that direction and to look at other options.
There have been options put forward by my colleague for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, one of which would have the effect of raising the transport rates from Quebec City further east. This would not have cost the government as much money in subsidizing the rate. It would have saved about $10 million, would have provided an opportunity for Atlantic Canada to get used to slightly higher rates, and very likely would have kept the flour mill now faced with closure in Atlantic Canada in business. It would have kept in business the two terminals that are at risk, the one at Saint John which has announced that it will be closing if the program does not go forward, and the one at Halifax which has a very shaky future now that at and east rates have been discontinued.
The impact of the policy change stretches beyond just terminal operators and the jobs that will be lost there which are quite numerous. We understand that the closure in Saint John which occurred February 28 meant a loss of 90 jobs. There is a possible loss of 483 jobs at the Halifax terminal with the termination of this program. As well, the closure of Dover Flour Mills, which is expected if this program goes into effect, will mean 45 more jobs lost and something in the neighbourhood of 250 indirect jobs in those cities, all due to the closures of these fairly major employers.
Further to the government announcement on May 16, there is the statement by the new Minister of Transport on May 30 when he appeared before the committee. He

June 5, 1990
stated that the alternatives to eliminating at and east rates that were put forward by the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission had not yet been studied. The government has taken its initiative, stopped the program without any consultation, and has not even looked at alternatives presented by the region affected.
Mr. Speaker, I see your signal. It is one o'clock. I would like to continue after 3 p.m..


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member will have six minutes remaining in debate on this motion after three o'clock.
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.

[Stage Direction]
[English}

Mr. John E. Cole (York- Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, this weekend I had the pleasure of officially opening a job entry program for women of the York region who are presently receiving social assistance but wishing to gain the experience and necessary skills to move into the workforce and be fully contributing members of society.
The program called Alternative Paths for Women is funded by the federal government and operated by Lumbers Cuts of Aurora, helping women in the York region wishing to earn and to learn.
This program provides job training, work habits, life skills and other aspects, such as filling out job applications, acquiring a professional attitude in the workforce and general self-confidence to these women. Basic furniture refinishing skills were chosen as the medium for the employment skills training. However, it is not the intent to provide qualified refinishers but rather to produce qualified workers. Lumber Cuts are already at their maximum number and are having great success in developing the skills necessary for these women to
re-enter the workforce and prepare them for entry level positions in private industry.
This type of program exemplifies the intention of Bill C-21 and I would hope the other place will pass this bill soon so that many more similar programs can be set up throughout the country to produce more qualified workers.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, June 3, some 250 residents of the Fallingbrook community in the Orleans area of the national capital region held a march for a united Canada.
This march was held to show their commitment to a tolerant Canada and a respect for Quebec and its place within Canada.

At this gathering, the First Ministers were urged to concentrate on the principles of tolerance, respect and mutual trust that are the very foundation of this country.
Furthermore, these citizens expressed their respect for the people of Quebec and their culture, language and institutions.
Finally, the gathering asked Canadian municipalities to stand together to show their love for their country and their respect for a dynamic Quebec within Canada.

This march had the support of the mayors of eastern Ontario, municipal politicians, especially the members of the Cumberland Township Council.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I strongly congratulate the citizens who organized this spontaneous gathering, which I believe represents the feelings of a growing number of Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the hon. member for his comments on a subject that is so important to all members in this House.

I thank very much the hon. member for his intervention which is important, not only to members here, but to our entire country.


Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for those kind words.


BILL C-21
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to condemn the attitude of Liberal Senators to Bill C-21 which was to come into force on January 1 this year.
The uncertainty caused by the present deadlock is intolerable. Postponing passage of the unemployment insurance legislation is causing considerable harm and is very costly for Canadians.
I regularly receive complaints from my constituents who would be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits under the provisions of Bill C-21 and who are now in financial difficulty because they must wait until the bill is passed.
Bill C-21 provides that $800 million can be spent on skills training for workers and $600 million on new services such as better maternity leave and unemployment insurance benefits for persons over 65.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce which represents 170,000 businesses has recommended the immediate passage of this bill.
A recent study indicated that two-thirds of Canadians are in favour of the government's proposal for changes in the unemployment insurance system.
I therefore ask the members of the other place to act promptly and pass Bill C-21.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, this week is Environment Week, a time to remind ourselves of the importance of reducing the environmental impacts of our individual, collective and governmental activities.
In the energy field, Canadians can do a lot more for their environment. For example, individual Canadians can conserve energy and install more efficient lighting
fixtures. Corporations can do the same and electric utilities can promote conservation among its customers.
The federal government has a major responsibility in the area of energy and the environment, but it is not living up to it. This fall the energy minister is expected to unveil his new energy efficiency and diversity program, which hopefully will repair some of the damage done by his government's neglect of this area in the past.
I urge all Canadians, and especially this government, to make every week Environment Week in its policies and in its actions and not just in its words.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, Varity Corporation received a $200 million bail-out from the federal and Ontario governments. That assistance was successful, it had a $90 million profit last year, but it seems to have no hesitation about biting the hand that fed it.
Varity executives are now musing about moving the company to the United States, a move that would violate the covenant it signed with the taxpayers of Canada. So what, it has already broken the agreement it made to create and maintain 1,000 permanent jobs in Canada by May 1, 1989. In fact, it is 450 jobs short. The taxpayers can bite back. Under the terms of the covenant, the federal and provincial governments can fine Varity Corporation $30,000 per job that it has failed to create.
I challenge the federal government to levy the fine, collect the money and pay it to the workers who have been laid off or who are about to be laid off at Varity's Kelsey-Hayes subsidiary in Windsor. Better still, use it to save Kelsey-Hayes and save those jobs. It is time that this government showed some teeth.


Mr. Harry Chadwick (Brampton-Malton):: Mr. Speaker, Hollywood creates heroes. Remember Gary Cooper in The Lou Gehrig Story? But in everyday life disease creates the real heroes. I met one of those everyday heroes last weekend in my riding. His name is Donald Glen.

June 5, 1990
Like the real Lou Gehrig, Mr. Glen has Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, or Lou Gehrig's disease as it is more commonly known. It is a devastating disease of the nervous system which destroys the voluntary muscles. Average life expectancy after diagnosis is 2.5 years.
Hollywood will never make a movie about Donald Glen and that is probably okay by him, but it is important to Mr. Glen that Canadians become aware of this disease so that the chances of beating it are better.
Mr. Speaker, there is no cure because doctors and researchers do not know the cause. Today, on behalf of Donald Glen and others across the country who suffer from ALS, I urge Canadians to contact the ALS society in their community and give their support. With the right team effort, we can pull together and help strike out this disease.


FISHERIES
Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, this morning I received a letter which says in part: "I have two beautiful children, I am five and a half months pregnant. I have no job, no income, no future, neither does my husband. How are we supposed to feed our children?"
That letter, like many others I receive, comes from a woman who used to be a fish plant worker until her fish plant closed. Her community, like so many others, is in total collapse because of the situation in the inshore fishery in Newfoundland.
Small fish plants in communities like Picadilly, Rose Blanche, Belleoram, and many others by the dozens have been closed because of the failure of the inshore fishery. This failure has nothing to do with another problem we have been hearing much about in the House, the northern cod stock issue. Fishermen cannot go fishing because there are no fish to catch in the seas off those communities and the plants are closed because there are no fish to process.
The Minister of Fisheries will know that his program of aid some weeks ago did not address the situation as it relates to these communities. I call upon him to come
forward with an aid package and do it now while there is still time.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, last night, like many francophones in this country, I turned on my television set to find out what was happening with the Meech Lake negotiations.
Unfortunately, I was sorry to see that the French CBC channel was not providing live coverage. So I turned to the English All News Channel and saw that English Canadians had the privilege to get all this information live from Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, my fondest wish and that of all French Canadians is that the President of the CBC will file a proposal with the CRTC as soon as possible so that we too can have an all-news channel in our language.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, today is World Environment Day and the first anniversary of the release of the New Democratic environment task force report, "Toward a Sustainable Future".
While the government was busy talking, New Democrats were busy travelling across the country listening to concerned Canadians and developing our own green plan for action on the environment.
Today, one year later, New Democrats released the green report card, grading the government on 10 key recommendations. For its ability to produce hot air and lots of environmental rhetoric the government gets an A-plus. For reneging on its commitment to reduce greenhouse gases, for skimping on foreign aid, for allowing toxic discharges into waterways and for ignoring pleas for help in upgrading municipal infrastructure, the government gets an F-minus. For its lack of action in protecting forests, cleaning up hazardous discharges and developing conservation and alternative energy, the government gets failing grades and a recommendation from the teacher for remedial classes on the greening of Canada.
June 5, 1990


BILL C-21
Mr. Felix Hoitmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I found more casualties of the refusal by the other House to pass Bill C-21.
At the Fisher River Indian reserve, 100 fishermen are facing the bleak prospect of welfare because of the refusal of the Senate to pass Bill C-21. What is even worse, these fishermen were fed Liberal Party propaganda telling them that Bill C-21 would force them all into the poor house, but the fishermen are not so easily misled.
These fishermen have asked me to tell the senators in the other place to pass Bill C-21 so they can restore some order to their lives. If the members of the other place are not willing to pass Bill C-21, then the fishermen of Fisher River have an alternative. They will sit in the red chamber and pass the bills while the Senators go out in their boats on Lake Winnipeg. The fishermen of Fisher River will not even suggest that they receive the $150 a day pay.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, confusion over the proposed goods and services tax continues. The government maintains that this is not a new tax, that it is revenue neutral on housing costs and that it is simple.
Yet the business community is outraged over the propaganda campaign. Home builders testified that housing prices will increase. The Canadian Federation of Small Business calls it an administrative nightmare. If, as claimed, it is so simple, why is the government using a band-aid approach to stop the haemorrhaging by introducing a new flat tax for small business?
Last week, the minister apologized for the loss of voice due to being overcome by praise heaped upon the government. The minister would be well advised to use his ears, not his mouth, to listen to Canadians. He would be speechless when he heard what Canadians truly think of the GST. You can be certain that it is not praise they are heaping.


S. O. 31 HEALTH
Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to announce that members of the parliamentary ad hoc committee on AIDS will be holding a press conference tomorrow at 1 p.m. at the National Press Theatre to release its report.
The report will include recommendations to the Minister of National Health and Welfare for the upcoming National AIDS Strategy, which will be announced later this month.
Members of Parliament from all three parties, and Senators, have been working on a voluntary, non-partisan basis for over a year to confront one of the most serious global epidemics that we are facing today.
Since the first case of AIDS was reported in Canada in 1982, at least 3,735 Canadians have been diagnosed with AIDS. More than 2,300 of those have died. Estimates show that between 25,000 and 50,000 Canadians may already be infected with HIV.
It is with this sense of urgency that the committee began holding public hearings in March and will officially release its report to the Minister of National Health and Welfare tomorrow.


HOUSING
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, once again, federal funding cuts are going to have a negative effect on the low income people of Manitoba.
This time, low cost housing is on the Conservative chopping block. The federal government has informed Manitoba and other provinces that there is going to be at least a 15 per cent reduction for social housing in 1990.
Private and public non-profit housing, rural and native housing for communities under 2,500 people, urban native housing, rental supplements and funding to rehabilitate urban housing will all suffer, thanks to these cuts.
The backlog of housing in our communities will only increase. At a time when it is harder and harder to afford shelter, this government is taking the mean-hearted step

Oral Questions
of turning its back on the people who need help the most.
Instead of the promised programs for housing for average and low income Canadians, we are witnessing a total retreat by the minister. The flurry of public relations press releases are cold comfort to the thousands of Canadian families sharing crowded homes or living in substandard houses.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The provincial premiers and the Prime Minister are now in the third day of discussions to find a way out of our current constitutional impasse.
To say the least, Canadians are very interested in what is happening. They are concerned about the future of their country.
Under our system of government, the Prime Minister has an obligation to report to Canadians through the House of Commons on these matters.
Therefore, I ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will bring the House and Canadians up to date now on the progress of these discussions.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that this morning the First Ministers spent a good deal of time considering a number of options for an amending formula as it relates to the Senate.
I am advised that the spirits are very high. It is a very constructive session. There are many suggestions. The atmosphere is friendly but very frank and business-like. All First Ministers are working very hard toward coming to a satisfactory conclusion.
I know all members of the House would want to join in expressing our very best wishes for success.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, we want to see these discussions succeed in a way that will assure the future of our country.
The press has reported in some depth on a detailed, four-stage proposal that the Prime Minister is said to have presented to the provincial premiers yesterday.
If there is one thing we have learned from the recent impasse, it is that Canadians believe they have a right to be kept up to date in a meaningful way on the progress of constitutional discussions as they occur.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will table today in the House the federal proposals that have been reported to be presently under discussion between the premiers and the Prime Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. Leader of the Opposition would understand that there are many proposals being considered and, yes, there has been what I understand to be a framework paper put forth for discussion purposes. The bulk of the time spent this morning was in respect of the pursuit of an amending formula, particularly as it related to the Senate. My understanding is that there are many suggestions being advanced. The session is very constructive. I can only presume that at an appropriate time this information will be released. Since the mood of the session is such that all premiers are working toward making some progress in this particular area, it would seem to me that that would be the most appropriate course of action for the present time.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, someone has obviously shared some presumably specific information with the news media. However, I think that the Canadian people are entitled to be informed of matters involving the future of their country. I therefore ask the Deputy Prime Minister: What will the government do to make these constitutional discussions more open and more accessible to the Canadian public?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Leader of the
June 5, 1990

Opposition would agree that much of the discussion that is taking place revolves around the technical aspects as they relate to an amending formula. As I said, suggestions are being put forth. There is a frank and friendly discussion taking place. It is very business-like and obviously, at an appropriate time, the session will become a public session. I think it is incumbent upon all of us to put our faith and our trust in the First Ministers, who are working and who are talking in a veiy businesslike manner, with the hopes that progress will be made. At the appropriate time, I can assure the hon. member that the discussion will be made public.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the status of women and concerns the report on poverty among working women. The number of working poor has increased five times faster among women than among men. Six hundred thousand women in the labour force in Canada have incomes below the poverty line and they have 1.6 million children. How does the government intend to end the segregation and discrimination in the labour market that keep working women poor?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the report to the Advisory Council on the Status of Women was released this morning. I have not yet had an opportunity to read it, but I am certainly looking forward to the recommendations as I know they will be helpful to us as we move forward to deal with this very important problem.
Obviously, as a government we have undertaken a variety of initiatives to address the issue of women in poverty, including the first employment equity legislation, the first pay equity settlements and examples which are going to be important as we work together with provincial governments and the private sector to address these issues. I am looking forward to receiving these recommendations and working with my colleagues at the federal and provincial levels to redress this issue and
Oral Questions
ensure that all women can achieve economic equality in this country.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think we all received the report at exactly the same time and it points out quite frankly, Madam Minister, that the economic status of women in Canada is a national disgrace and that women are getting poorer not better off, despite what the minister and her colleagues constantly claim. The recommendations are nothing new, Madam Minister. You have heard them all before and yet, still, nearly half of the single mothers are poor and their children are poor. These women are poor when they get old because they have never had a chance to earn a decent salary and to build up a decent pension.
Will the minister take responsibility personally for ensuring that her colleagues address these long-standing issues, end discrimination, end segregation, provide decent child care, provide decent working conditions for women, and make sure that women who are working are able to put food on the table and clothing on the backs of their children?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my hon. colleague is aware of the statistic that since this government took office in 1984 there are some 760,000 Canadians who have escaped poverty. In fact, the poverty rates have declined during these years.
Obviously more needs to be done, and I can assure my colleague that I am working closely with my colleagues and in meetings last week with my provincial colleagues on the issues of pensions and child care.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Today is World Environment Day. There can surely be no greater threat to the environment of the world than continued nuclear testing and continued emphasis on nuclear warfare and improving nuclear weapons. In fact, while the cold war is ending, the environmental problems in the north are not, and I speak of the north as the Arctic.

June 5, 1990
Oral Questions
The Soviet Union recently announced that as of 1993 it will re-establish nuclear testing on the Arctic island of Novaya Zemlya. This particular site has been used in the past.
Given the prevailing spirit of co-operation we saw with Mr. Gorbachev's visit last week, and the comments he made about a zone of peace in the Arctic, my question to the minister is this. Could he share with us what the Prime Minister conveyed to Mr. Gorbachev about the Arctic and in particular was a circumpolar treaty on the Arctic discussed with President Gorbachev?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the New Democratic Party for returning to a question which was raised by her colleague and spokesperson on foreign policy in the recent committee hearings on external affairs.
As a result of those discussions, as I reported to the House a few days ago, I raised the question with Mr. Shevardnadze with respect to the shifting of the emphasis of Soviet testing to the Arctic and expressed Canada's concern about the environmental consequences of that testing. I indicated to him that we were particularly aware of the fragility of the ecology there and wanted to ensure that the co-operation established between Canada and the Soviet Union on Arctic matters could apply to co-operation with respect to testing.
I would be prepared to give a fuller briefing to the hon. member or to her colleague from Winnipeg on those discussions if she desires.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister.
The minister is of course aware that Canada is not the only source of the pollution that is destroying the Arctic. The Soviet Union also produces a great deal of pollution.
Canada has the necessary technology to reduce these dangerous emissions, but technology exports to countries in Eastern Europe are controlled by a NATO treaty that dates back to 1949.
What does the minister intend to do to enable Canada to export this technology to all countries?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the regulations in question do not apply exclusively to NATO. The arrangement involves NATO members but also other countries like Australia and Japan.
Discussions are now under way to change these regulations in order to provide for a broader exchange of expertise and technological skills with the Soviet Union and other Warsaw Pact members.
This is one of the questions that was discussed when Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Shevardnadze were here, during their visit. I am informed that it was also discussed in Washington. Tomorrow, I will be in Great Britain, where I hope to have an opportunity to talk to my fellow NATO ministers and find out whether we can make a little more headway on the COCOM system.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the minister's comments, because it is clearly madness that the health of Canadian citizens is being affected by pollution which Canadians could assist to reduce in another country except for a military treaty.
I would like to raise as well with the minister low-level flights over Labrador. As we know, according to NATO, the plans to build a base at Goose Bay have been scrapped because of the ending of the cold war. However, fears still exist that these flights will not diminish but increase. In fact figures by officials of the department indicate as much as a doubling.
How does the Secretary of State for External Affairs feel about such increases, in view of his comments a week ago about NATO's forward defence strategy and the need to rethink that strategy?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that question is being considered, as the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party suggests, in the context of general discussions that are occurring within NATO.
I am not sure that the specific question of the pace of low-level flights will come up in the discussions in the next two days. I rather doubt that. However, the general
June 5, 1990

question as to the over-all configuration of NATO and indeed the orientation of NATO will be discussed.
If I may refer briefly to the earliest question posed by the Leader of the New Democratic Party with respect to the north, one of the suggestions that has been made by members of the standing committee is that it would be useful for parliamentarians from Canada and the Soviet Union to meet more regularly to discuss matters of common interest in the north.
I made that proposal to Mr. Shevardnadze who immediately accepted. I hope it will be possible through the intermediary of the standing committee to make arrangements for that kind of practical co-operation by elected representatives of the Canadian and Soviet people.


ROUTE CANADA
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: My question, Mr. Speaker, is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday the Minister of Transport tried to tell us that the sale of Route Canada was an arm's length transaction between the buyers and Canadian National, with no involvement whatsoever of the federal government, although we know that before the sale could take place there had to be an Order in Council by the federal government approving the sale. Also yesterday we found out that CN did not even know that Manfred Ruhland, one of the three purchasers, was actually involved in the deal.
Why does the federal government not admit that it was the government, not CN, that put this deal together? Who else could have sold the company to three people, one of whom did not have the financial stability to get a credit card, and the other two known Tory contributors?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Labour) and (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Transport was very clear yesterday.
CN Route is a subsidiary of CN. CN asked for offers from the private sector to get rid of a company that was losing $30 million to $40 million per year. It got four
Oral Questions
offers and accepted the best offer because it represented a possibility that the company could be reactivated, made profitable again, and save the employment of 2,300 people.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, in the sale of the company the federal government got $29 million and then proceeded to give the company $40 million through CN actually to retire 1,500 of the employees, leaving the remaining 1,900 completely adrift.
Why does the government not admit that it did not care what happened to Route Canada? It just wanted to get rid of the company. It just wanted to slough off its responsibility to the employees. Why does the government not admit that and be frank about it?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat that CN had two choices: either to shut down the operation of CN Route immediately and put 2,300 people out of work or to accept an offer which provided a possibility that this organization could be made profitable again and save some employees. I think CN did the proper thing.


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Minister of Transport suggested that privatization of Route Canada was a good deal. In light of the fact that 1,900 employees have lost their jobs, that $40 million was paid in severance pay, that employee contributions to pension plans and Revenue Canada were used by the company, that $60 million is owed to creditors, and that the government only received $29 million, would the minister admit that the only ones to benefit from this sweet deal are friends of the government?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, any interpretation can be made by the opposition, but the facts are that CN was losing $30 million to $40 million a year through the operation of CN Route. It was faced with two possibilities: either to close down the operations completely and put 2,300 people on the street or to try to sell the organization to a private company that could possibly make it profitable again. It asked for offers. It got four offers and accepted the best offer it could get at that time.

Oral Questions


George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Solicitor General.
Over two years ago government briefing notes indicated that the RCMP commercial crimes unit would be completing an investigation of this matter in nine months. Almost three times that length of time has passed, and we still have nothing.
What excuse does the Solicitor General have for the delay and when will justice be done?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the investigation will be completed soon.


ROMANIA
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It deals with the issue of seismic studies that were conducted while AECL was in the process of selling Candu reactors to the Ceausescu regime in Romania.
On March 14, in an answer to a question I placed on the Order Paper, the minister replied, and I quote from page 9286 of Hansard:
Studies as to the likelihood of seismic activity or earthquakes occurring around the Cemadova site in Romania were conducted by the Romanians.
Because of this AECL could not release the studies to me or to other Canadians.
Yet, last Thursday, May 31, the minister replied to another question by saying, and here I quote from page 12119 of Hansard:
I am saying to him that there was an independent pier review done in respect to seismology and with respect to the earthquake situation.
Was the minister referring to the same studies in these two answers? Was the study conducted by the Romanians the same as the independent pier review?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, no, I will repeat the answer that I was giving.
The question first arose as to whether there were any seismology studies in the earthquake zone in which Cemadova was located. Those studies were done by the Romanian authorities, and this is on the public record. In fact the hon. member put that into his question today.
Commissioned by the Romanians and available to AECL was a pier review, a second study done by a company from Belgium. That information is in the hands of the Romanians. I wish it could be released. It is Romanian property and it is for that reason that I cannot release it.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
If these two studies existed, why did the minister not make this clear in March in his answer to my question on the Order Paper?
Would the minister not now agree, given the uncertainty that seems to exist around the studies, uncertainty which has been reflected in the minister's own answers, that it is time for the minister to put aside his attachment to nuclear power as an option, and indeed for me and others to put aside our opposition to nuclear power, and have an inquiry to determine whether or not it is appropriate and in the Canadian and global interests to have that reactor proceed in Romania?
Let's have an independent inquiry, let's settle all the facts with respect to studies, and let's have full answers from now on in the House of Commons.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, when I answered the question in March that information regarding the independent study done in Belgium was not available to me. I was not aware of it.
As the hon. member will know, when his colleague, the member for Burnaby-Kingsway, and the member for Winnipeg North Centre returned, they made the point about seismology. It was with further discussion and further review that that issue came to my attention. That is the background.
Second, in terms of an independent study I reviewed that with his colleagues. I appreciate the spirit in which he mentions both his perspective on nuclear energy and mine. We are looking at what kind of a study could be put
June 5, 1990

into place to meet the requirements of both the government and colleagues. Quite frankly, in terms of the need to have an independent airing there is really not a lot of difference between his colleagues and myself.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of members the presence in the gallery of the hon. Maj-Lis Loow, Minister of Immigration of Sweden.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
The minister has now had 24 hours to review the evidence dealing with the Randeree case, in particular the error in judgment that was made by the refugee board. Also evidence has been submitted to her demonstrating that Mr. Randeree has no status whatsoever in Germany, neither has his wife, and therefore he would be a stateless person without documents.
Taking into account that kind of evidence, is the minister prepared to use her discretion and authority under the act to redress this unfair decision and allow Mr. Randeree to stay in Canada, the country of his choice?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to table in the House today, at the appropriate time, the letter that was actually sent by Mr. Fairweather, which does not in any way suggest that the decision was erroneous.
It does suggest that it was not appropriate for him to discuss the correctness or otherwise of the decision. Mr. Fairweather made a suggestion similar to what I suggested in this Chamber on two separate occasions, that Dr. Randeree consult a lawyer and might also consider assisting his son as an immigrant under the family reunification provisions of the Immigration Act.
Oral Questions
Having said that, I have said that I will review the case and I am in the process of doing that. I am disappointed that the hon. member, who in a previous incarnation had some interest in this portfolio, has chosen to use the letter in this way.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the excerpt from the letter from Mr. Fairweather which directly contradicts the statement of the minister. Mr. Fairweather says:
The documents set out in the material you sent to me support your
son's position that he is a national of South Africa and not a national
of India.
The refugee board made the decision on the grounds that he was a national of India. Mr. Fairweather says the documents support the opposite. Therefore the minister is not prepared to look at the proper evidence and is clearly rejecting her responsibility and authority in sending Mr. Randeree back to a situation-


Mr. Speaker:: That all may be. Would the hon. member put his question.


Lloyd Axworthy: Is the minister aware that by sending Mr. Randeree back to the Union of South Africa the Government of Canada will be totally transgressing its responsibilities under the convention for refugees? Is she aware of that responsibility and the change of policy that she has directed?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, there is no one who is more aware of our responsibility to refugees than I am. I am sorry that the hon. member is less aware of what those responsibilities are.
As I explained to the hon. member yesterday, in addition to being perfectly aware of what my responsibilities are I am quite prepared to review this case. If the hon. member is not satisfied with that, I am sorry with his impatience.


COURT CHALLENGES PROGRAM
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State and Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship. In December of last year the Standing Committee on Human Rights tabled a report on the Court Challenges Program strongly advising its continuation but also recommending a review and possible change of the

June 5, 1990
Oral Questions
non-government administering agency. To date, to the detriment of the program, the minister has not given a response about the administering agency.
Will the Secretary of State tell us today which agency is going to administer the program and, if not, why not?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, we have an ongoing agreement with the Canadian Council on Social Development for the administration of the program until the end of July.
I have also indicated publicly before the standing committee that I was quite prepared to look at other options if they exist. I have recently written to the Canadian Council again to determine their availability and their desire to continue and under what parameters we would want to continue with a further discussion of some of the criteria and some of the work that they were doing.
Indeed, I have also investigated another option. At a very near date in the future, after I have had a chance to consult with my colleagues, we will be able to make that public.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the same minister. The Court Challenges Program comprises two panels, one on equality and one on language rights. It goes without saying that one of the serious problems today is legally binding interpretations of minority language rights in this country.
Will the Secretary of State with his government find additional funding for the Court Challenges Language Rights Program?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: No, Mr. Speaker, the announcement that was made recently was quite clear on the parameters of the program and both the Minister of Justice and I made that clear in a recent announcement before this House and outside this House.


PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and it concerns the government's proposed appointment of the Prime Minister's former director of communications, Bruce Phillips, to the important position of Privacy Commissioner.
This morning I spoke with Canada's internationally respected privacy expert, Professor David Flaherty of the University of Western Ontario, who said he was "disgusted by this appointment". He went on to say: "The appointment ruins the integrity of the office-"


Some hon. members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Just a minute. What has it to do with the question? If the hon. member wants to put a question, put it. To use as a preamble somebody's view of somebody else who is not even in this chamber is, it seems to me, stretching the tolerance of the whole place.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, this is not just somebody's view. This is the view of the leading expert on privacy in Canada.


Some hon. members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. In the interest of order I have asked the hon. member to co-operate. The hon. member will please put his question.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, will the minister now recognize that this office, which must be recognized as vigorously protecting the privacy of all Canadians in areas such as random drug testing and AIDS, must not be used as a patronage plum for the Prime Minister? Will she cancel this proposed appointment?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite astonished at the hon. member's comments because it seems to me that the career pattern of the current nominee for Privacy Commissioner is very similar to that of the current incumbent, Mr. Grace. Both have had very distinguished careers in journalism, both being awardwinning journalists. The current nominee, in fact, was involved in assisting the member of this House who brought the access to information legislation before this House. Both the current incumbent and the nominee have served in the public service. I do not think that the
June 5, 1990

current incumbent would be offended if I were to point out to the House that he, by his own admission, is a very close friend of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. I do not think anyone in this House would suggest that that in any way disqualifies the current incumbent from holding the job.
People who work in Ottawa develop personal relationships and friendships in political life. They also occasionally spend time working in the public service-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member.


Mr. Crosbie:: What about Broadbent? What about the rest of you socialist horde? What about what's his name, Lewis, who we appointed to the UN? What about that turkey? You don't protest about him. What about buddy down on the civil service board? What's his name? Ian Deans, what about him? That was all right. If Phillips was a socialist it would be all right.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will put his question.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, obviously Canadians expect the Privacy Commissioner to be an effective watch-dog, not a lap-dog for the Prime Minister's Office.
In view of the deep concerns that have been expressed by Canadians over the appointment of Bruce Phillips who, by the way, unlike John Grace was in the Prime Minister's Office-


Some hon. members:: Order, order!


Svend Johannes Robinson: They're a little sensitive, Mr. Speaker. And in view of the shabby treatment of Inger Hansen as Information Commissioner, will the Minister of Justice refer the proposed appointments of John Grace and Bruce Phillips to the Justice Committee in order that that committee can hold full hearings before this House is called upon to vote on these appointments?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is perfectly aware of the procedure involved in making
Oral Questions
these appointments. These are appointments that are made by a resolution of this House.
Although the hon. member's party does not have a realistic prospect of forming a government, I would hope that that scintilla of expectation that resides in all of his party members would lead them to recognize the logical conclusion of stating that anyone who takes a break from a private career to serve in government, whether it is in the office of the Prime Minister or any other office, is forever tainted. That is a notion that has very serious implications for the integrity of the Public Service.


AGRICULTURE
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Agriculture. It concerns feed grains and the substantial financial looses. Suffered by feed mills, especially those in Quebec, as a result of changes in shipping rate subsidies made several months ago.
Could the minister tell the House and people in the farm business community about the measures he intends to take to remedy the situation?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds has pursued consultations and studies on shipping rates. Changes have been made to the subsidy rates. Regarding the particular question raised by the hon. member about corrective action resulting from these changes, I am consulting with my colleague the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds, and 10 days from now, Mr. Speaker, we should be able to reply and announce the kind of corrective action that will be taken to deal with the situation.


JUSTICE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. I want to ask her a question concerning the decision in the Ontario high court relating to the Finta case, which was the first case brought under the war crimes legislation.

June 5, 1990
Oral Questions
Does the government intend to appeal the acquittal obtained in this case?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, we are still reviewing the case. The transcript of the trial is not available at the moment. The judge has asked for an opportunity to review it before it is released. The transcript is not ready.
As the hon. member will know, it was a very complex case and it involved very extensive charges to the jury. We are reviewing the case, but no decision has been made at this time.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question, will the minister assure the House, bearing in mind that in a number of such cases both in the United States and West Germany lower level cases were lost and on appeal decisions were often reversed, that this decision of this court will not deter the government from bringing forward and continuing to promote this policy in justified cases?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to reassure the hon. member of that. Each case is assessed on its own merits. Clearly we will be reviewing this case to determine whether it is appropriate for appeal and what we can learn from it. We are committed to continuing to enforce those provisions of the Criminal Code.


LITERACY
Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship. Last night more than 60 national and regional groups representing business, media, labour, community and literacy met to deal with the fact that over 30 per cent of Canadians have trouble reading or writing. This group reached a consensus that combating illiteracy must become Canada's priority.
What is the government going to do in order to ensure that Canadians are not left behind?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, it is a major social illness but, as the press and others have said, it is curable.
In the previous study, we had divided the world into the literate and the illiterate. While that was a very important opportunity to evaluate Canadian skills, the more recent examination carried out by Statistics Canada gives us a continuum of literacy skills. It gives us an idea of how we can evaluate Canadians in terms of their individual abilities.
It showed that 62 per cent of the population have no trouble at all in the reading skills. It also gives us a complete understanding of where the troubles exist. Now, with our very effective program under this government's leadership and our National Literacy Secretariat, we are building partnerships with Canadians right across the country with every provincial government and in the private and public sectors. We have a plan and we appreciate the assistance and participation of all Canadians.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister would agree with me that the $10 billion cost to our society is a hell of a lot of money when you consider that the deficit is $30 billion.
Would the minister not agree that the best way to deal with this issue is by setting national standards for literacy? Would the government make a firm commitment today to put these standards in place?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, this government was the first government to even mention literacy, which it did in its Speech from the Throne in 1986. The Prime Minister and this government brought forward a program of $110 million over five years. We have used that program in a very effective manner to build partnerships.
This International Literacy Year is a year to reflect on the tremendous contribution being made by Canadians in all walks of life. Once and for all we intend to eradicate this situation in Canada.
As I said last Friday in the House in response to a question from one of his colleagues, nobody should rest while there is even one person who is not able to read or write and function properly in our society.


SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission -Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, because the Minister responsible for the Status of Women has not read the report from the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, I would like to put my
June 5, 1990

question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
His government has been responsible for clawbacks to family allowance, clawbacks to pensions, the cap on the Canada Assistance Plan and a failure to deliver child care programs. Just what is the minister responsible for social assistance programs prepared to do to help women who are finding themselves in ever increasing poverty in this country pull themselves out of that poverty? What kind of support services does he propose?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, possibly the hon. member overlooks some of the facts, for example, the fact that the government this year will be spending about $1 billion on child care in Canada and that we have a commitment to introduce a full program during the life of this Parliament. She overlooks the fact that the child tax credit was increased by more than 50 percent between 1984 and
1988.	She overlooks the fact that there has been a significant drop in poverty in Canada during the tenure of this government and that trend continues. She overlooks the initiatives that have been taken by the government in terms of encouraging training for women and in terms of encouraging opportunities for women.
I would suggest to the hon. member that, if she wants her questions to receive the attention they deserve, she should do her homework with regard to the progress that has been made to date.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joy Langan: Can you believe that?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Joy Langan: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I would suggest that the Minister of National Health and Welfare do his homework. I would suggest that the minister look at the reports about women and poverty in the country that come in consistently. I would suggest that he give us a plan. I am asking for that.
Will the minister give women in the country a plan to help them pull themselves out of poverty, not just so many words about programs that may or may not come
Government Orders
along in the term of this Parliament, such as the one for child care?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member finds it incredible that I would ask her to do her homework. I do not think that is an unreasonable request to make of her.
The hon. member should know the fact that between 1984 and 1988 there was a significant decline in poverty in Canada across the board. Instead of the hon. member simply attacking the government with regard to child care, she should be aware of the fact that this year the government will be spending about $1 billion on child care and is committed to increasing that during the life of this Parliament.
If she is serious about being concerned about the role of women in Canada, she should be supporting these measures and working with the government in order to improve the lot of women in Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister, on a point of order.


POINT OF ORDER
Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hereby table the letter to which I referred in Question Period.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-26, an act to amend the Railway Act (grain and flour subsidies), as reported (with an amendment) from a legislative committee; and Motions Nos. 1, 3, and 6 of Mr. Ferguson (p. 12266).
[Stage Direction]
June 5, 1990
Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When the House rose at one o'clock the hon. member for Mackenzie had the floor. The hon. member has six minutes remaining.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At one o'clock I was pointing out some of the effects on various regions of the country and on various sectors of the economy that this move by the government to discontinue the at and east rates to Atlantic Canada is having.
The poultry and dairy industries in the Maritime provinces will no longer have access to as much feed grain and will have to pay a higher price for their feedstuffs, putting those industries at risk in terms of continuing to be competitive. Those commodities produced under supply-management systems are the standby and the backbone of the agricultural community in Atlantic Canada.
As well, the decision has meant the complete writing off of capital investments in two or three major points in the country. The terminal at Port McNicholl has now closed down. That terminal was a very low upkeep kind of facility that did not require a lot of maintenance. There are big, concrete silos that require virtually zero maintenance and that will probably stand for another 50 to 200 years with very little extra investment. The belts that take the grain from the bottoms of those silos have been running for 50 to 60 years without maintenance and appear to be ready to continue for many years to come.
The effect of the decision has been to make this investment worth absolutely zero, in fact less than zero. The owners of the property will now have to blow up the silos, clean off the property, and make it available to use for something else. Doing that takes away a storage facility that could be made available on a surge capacity basis for grain and oilseeds producers in southern Ontario. This option is now closed off and forestalled.
The farmers in Ontario are going to have to spend more money either directly themselves or through the commercial grain handling part of the agricultural supply chain. They are going to have some new investments in storage capacity for grains and oilseeds in southern Ontario.
Similarly, in Saint John, New Brunswick, there will be no more grain storage silos left in a few years. There is
no reason for those terminals to exist any more, and they will probably be tom down as well. Again, this takes away any further option of moving grain, other than through the St. Lawrence system. In fact, it makes it more difficult to even out the flow of feed grains and flour grade wheat to the maritime region because it will reduce the amount of storage available.
While the intention is not to close the storage facility at Halifax immediately, the future of that terminal is very much in jeopardy with this decision.
The final effect is that not only are western grain producers losing another shipping option that has been available to them, but the users are going to have to change their pattern of operation. Some of them are going to be forced completely out of business, even though their facilities are good for another 50 to 200 years. The whole thing makes very little economic sense.
The government would have been well disposed to have negotiated a different arrangement such as that suggested by my hon. friend from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. He proposed adding 5 per cent to the freight rates from Quebec City on to the maritime region. This would permit the traffic to flow on a need and called for basis. This would have permitted the continuation of hundreds of jobs and lessened the negative impact on the agricultural production sectors in maritime Canada. It would have veiy likely kept the flour mill in that part of the region in operation as well.
In closing, I urge the government to reconsider its move to close down the at and east rates at the end of the last crop year. Instead, I urge it to permit the program to continue until April 1, 1995, as this motion requires, so that there can be adequate time for the kinds of studies that the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds are now saying should have been done.


Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, we all know that today we are continuing to participate in a parliamentary charade.
The legislation that we have been debating here has been in effect since last July. We have gone through first and second reading. We have called in witnesses at great expense. We are going through report stage now. We will
June 5, 1990

go through third reading tomorrow. The bill will be sent to the Senate. There will be Royal Assent and proclamation. We are going through the motions to legitimize a government action, which has no legitimate reason to be in a policy, that has been in effect since last July. That is supporting a parliamentary dictatorship. We are trying to expose what the government is doing to the Canadian people.
The elevator at the port of Saint John has been closed because of this legislation. The work force at the elevator in the port of Halifax has been severely reduced. Already we have 1,000 jobs lost in the Atlantic area.
The chairman of the transport committee, even though he is sympathetic to what we are saying on this side of the House, will have no effect on changing the government's mind regarding the withdrawal of this bill.
The amendments of the hon. member for Lambton- Middlesex are a valiant attempt to make a disastrous bill a little better. The government will railroad this bill through without amendments. As a matter of fact, it has already announced a study into the effects of the bill, a bill which has been in effect for almost a year. This is totally unbelievable. The government has implemented a policy and has now announced it will study the effects of the legislation. It will end up re-implementing a very similar program to the at and east grain and flour subsidy after destroying it.
The government already knows the disastrous effects the bill will have on Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, but, it will kill the bill anyway and then re-implement a similar program. The reasons for the policy in the first place have not changed. What was the purpose of the at and east grain and flour policy?
I would like to quote from a witness at the legislative committee from the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission as to the purpose of the flour and grain subsidy:
The "At and East" Grain and Flour Subsidy program was implemented in the mid-1960s to ensure that eastern Canadian ports could compete with United States east coast ports; and to enable the Ports of Halifax and Saint John to compete with the St. Lawrence River ports.
Government Orders
The reason for the subsidy has changed somewhat in that eastern Canadian ports can now compete with the United States ports. The second reason for the program, to enable the ports of Halifax and Saint John to compete with the St. Lawrence ports, is still in effect. The fact is that the Atlantic ports of Saint John and Halifax cannot compete. To the detriment of Halifax and Saint John, the ports in Quebec City, Baie Comeau, and other St. Lawrence River ports will benefit at the expense of Atlantic Canada.
I would also like to refer to the minister who implemented that at and east program, the Hon. J. W. Pickers-gill. In 1966, referring to the reasons for the at and east program, he said: "According to the Board of Transport Commissioners these rates are already unremuner-ative-We decided to keep those rates at their present level and to pay compensation for doing so. This is because we feel there is an equal obligation in this field to the obligation with regard to the Crowsnest. The purpose of this is to ensure that we will have rates which will provide some inducement and incentive to shippers to use the facilities of the Atlantic ports".
Basically, these are the reasons why the minister, Mr. Pickersgill, implemented the program. He viewed it as an equal obligation to the western program of Crowsnest.
In 1975, the program was extended to include the Ontario wheat growers. This was for the purpose of storing grain in the Georgian Bay area and then shipping in the winter, once prices had stabilized, to the export ports in the east. As the board states in their objectives in using this program:
The At and East has allowed the board to put in place an effective
and orderly marketing process.
There was an additional reason for this program and it was that it created an efficient marketing program for the wheat growers of Ontario.
The abolition of the at and east program will severely hurt Atlantic Canada. I would like to refer to some statements that Mr. Keith Russell, executive director of the Atlantic Farmers Council, has made to the legislative committee. Mr. Russell represents about 80 per cent of all farmers in the Atlantic provinces, in that the federations of agriculture from Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland are repre-

Government Orders
sented by this co-ordinating body which they call the Atlantic Fanners Council.
According to Mr. Russell, the livestock and poultry industries in Atlantic Canada require about one million tonnes of grain per year. The Atlantic provinces are growing about half that requirement, that is about
500.000	tonnes. That means they are importing about
500.000	tonnes from western Canada.
At the same time they are not allowed to even investigate-I suppose they could investigate-but they are not allowed to purchase grain from the European Common Market or from the eastern United States, because in order to do so, one needs a licence from the Canadian Wheat Board and it refused to give one. We are caught in a position where we have to buy our grain from western Canada and from Ontario and we are going to have to buy it at a much increased price. Because of the increased cost, it is going to detrimentally affect our livestock and poultry producers in Atlantic Canada.
The main beneficiaries of this program, in addition to Atlantic Canadians, are the wheat and grain producers of western Canada and Ontario. This program is now costing farmers an additional $25 to $30 a tonne in transportation costs of grain coming into the region. This is going to have the effect, according to Mr. Russell, of cutting the number of livestock and poultry growers in half. If this is not going to be a disaster to the Atlantic provinces, then I do not know what it is going to take to show this government that this bill is a piece of ill-advised legislation.
In conclusion, I implore the government, on behalf of the livestock and poultiy producers of Atlantic Canada, to withdraw this bill or at least to agree with the member for Lambton-Middlesex to not implement this program for at least a five-year period so the farmers of Atlantic Canada will have an opportunity to make adjustments to the withdrawal of the program.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, if you would allow me a few moments to respond to at least some of the comments and statements that have been made in support of this particular amendment and the other amendments proposed to Bill C-26.
I do not think it is too much to say that the amendments are virtually and entirely without merit. I say this for historic reasons. We have heard many times in this debate that the subsidization embodied in the at and east rate was created in the early sixties and affirmed in 1966 as a provision of the Railway Act of Canada. The purpose of the subsidization was to ensure the flow of grain and grain products, including flour, to the east and particularly to the east coast ports of Halifax and Saint John.
Simply on the passage of time and the changes that have taken place over the past 25 years, the subsidy requires some form of re-examination. This re-examination did not start yesterday, it started in 1984 when the government reviewed all the expenditures that were part of the massive deficit that the previous Liberal government had incurred over the years and piled into a $200 billion national debt. I do not think anybody would ever fault the government for reviewing each and every item of federal expenditure.
Of course, subsidies were one of the items that came under review. The question was asked as to whether this form of subsidization was accomplishing a useful purpose, bearing in mind the cost to the treasury that exceeded, in some years, $40 million and was capped in one particular year at $40 million. It is understandable that the subsidy was reviewed and found at fault. This review took place in the mid-80s and the at and east subsidization program was under attack from 1985 onward.
The Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission recognized that fact and came forward in 1985, making some suggestions for change. It knew that the at and east subsidy was not fulfilling its purpose, was not cost effective and was not producing all the results that effective government assistance can produce.
All these matters were considered by officials, whether letters were answered or not does not matter. The matter was on the table, it was fully considered, but no positive recommendations were made. No authoritative body, provincial government, railway company, shipping company, or elevator company came forward and said, "Here is exactly what we want to replace the at and
June 5, 1990

east". So a decision was taken in April of 1989 to cancel the at and east subsidy.
That decision was taken in the budget and the legislation embodied in Bill C-26 simply implements a budget decision taken in April of 1989. And here we are, years later almost, debating what is a fait accompli. The members opposite knew in April of 1989 that the at and east had been abolished. They know that in July of the same year, transportation of grain through the system embodied in the at and east rates stopped. They know that all subsidies terminated in January of 1990. They know that grain is not now flowing eastward as a result of the at and east subsidy. They know the game is over. They know fini has been written to the book and now it is time to write a new book on grain movements to the east coast. Now the time has come-


Mr. Benjamin:: Like what?


Howard Edward Crosby: And so the member for Regina-Lums-den, who is not involved in the port of Halifax nor in the port of Saint John, says, "Like what?". Well, now what do you do? Do you start writing a new program before you have terminated the old? Can you have two kinds of subsidies arguably in effect? No, what you have to do is terminate the subsidies and then take the positive attitude toward what might be an appropriate replacement.
You have to listen to organizations like the Halifax-Dartmouth Port Development Commission which has suggested unit trains and are conducting a study to determine whether unit trains can be used to carry grain from western Canada directly to the ports of Halifax and Saint John.
Look at those kinds of suggestions and examine them carefully, not sit in the House of Commons and use arcane arguments to support a policy which has already been eliminated. What, indeed, is the purpose of that? Do they really think they are helping the longshoremen in the port of Halifax? Do they really think they are helping the operators of the grain elevator in the port of Halifax? Do they really think they are helping Dover Flour Mills, by arguing against a matter that has already been clearly established and is now a matter of history? What is the point of that? Are members of the House of Commons, allegedly acting in the interests of the people involved, the people of Nova Scotia, the people of New
Government Orders
Brunswick, the people of Atlantic Canada, simply going to stall this bill so that no resolution of the problem will ever occur?
Is that your purpose? Is that what you want to do for the people of Atlantic Canada? Or do you want to get to work and find replacement policies and programs that will mitigate any damage caused by the elimination of the at and east subsidy? Is that too much to ask members from Saskatchewan to do? Is that too much to ask of members from Ontario? Is it too much to ask members from Nova Scotia to put aside the political rhetoric, and to recognize that a decision has been taken by government and that decision is part of history and to go on to resolve the problem? Is that too much to ask? Is that what they enjoy?
Is it their purpose in life to sit here and involve themselves in useless political rhetoric when there are people at work in the country trying to resolve the problems? They want help from members of Parliament. They want support, but I do not know anybody who appeared before the legislative committee who said: "Preserve the at and east." Since 1985, the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission has admitted that the at and east rate is ineffective and that we must move to some other form of assistance.
The members from the New Democratic Party say: "We agree with the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission. We support their submissions." They say: "Keep the at and east and then we will see what else we can get." That is not going to work. They know it. They are just taking political advantage. They think somebody in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick might be listening to them and actually believe that they are acting in their interests instead of putting roadblocks in the way of the resolution of the problem.
I have lived in the port of Halifax all my life. My grandfather served in the House of Commons before me. I do not think anybody can doubt my motives in trying to assist the port of Halifax. Yet, they come here from Regina, Saskatchewan and say: "No, no. Don't eliminate the at and east. Keep it in force. Let's go on for another six days. Cany it over the summer. Don't solve it until the fall." How is that going to put in any alternate programs of the kind recommended by the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission? How are we going to act upon any of their suggestions unless we

June 5, 1990
Government Orders
deal with and finalize this matter here in the House of Commons?
I appeal to members to put aside the rhetoric and the partisan, infantile policies. Let us get the bill passed. This will allow us to go on in a positive way to implement some of the recommendations of the Halifax-Dartmouth Port Development Commissions and some of the recommendations that flow from the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission. It will allow us to look at the possibility of unitrains and the cost factors involved, to preserve the elevator, to implement the study that has been undertaken by the Minister of Agriculture and the task force to see if we can preserve the grain elevator, to help the longshoremen and the employees in the port of Halifax to gain other employment.
They do not want to listen to you people. They want jobs. They want the grain elevator operating. They do not want to listen to you. They want some hope for the future and you are not giving them any while debating this bill and stalling it in the House of Commons. I wish my colleague from the city of Dartmouth was here to argue against me and to tell me that the people in the port of Halifax want the at and east rate stalled in the House of Commons.
They want this matter decided. They want to go on. They want hope for the future. They do not want your empty rhetoric any more.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I wish I lived in Halifax so I could run against the hon. member.
In all the years I have been here, I have never heard a member betray his own region and his own city with the kind of garbage to which I have just had to listen. The hon. gentleman forgets that something like the at and east freight rates affect us all from Moose Jaw to Halifax. From where do you think you get that high quality milling wheat? From where do you think you get that high quality feed grain?
Do you think it grew up in the middle of the St. Lawrence River? You do not know a damn thing about grain and grain movement. You do not know anything about it. The hon. member talks about jobs. This bill has already put over 100 people out of work. He talks about making jobs. The hon. gentleman submits that they are
going to replace this. Well, the one thing you do not do, if you are any kind of a government with a handful of brains, is cancel a program until a replacement one is agreed to and ready to put in place. These guys have got nothing.
The Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission has made proposals which the government has refused to accept. When we get to Motion No. 2, which is a proposal of the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission, I wonder where the hon. member will be. He will be out behind the curtain, hiding. He will not have the courage to vote for his own city and his own port.
We will support Motion No. 1 of my colleague the Liberal critic because, if nothing else, passing this motion would give the government time to come up with its replacement program that the hon. member for Halifax just talked about. Obviously the hon. member and the government do not have a replacement program. That will give the government a year or two, as long as they are going to last, to come up with their replacement program. They have not got one yet and they will not listen to the people from the Atlantic provinces who have made proposals which the government refuses to act on or even listen to.
The worst tragedy of all is that this is a total emasculation of the parliamentary process. I know Mr. Speaker ruled on the question of privilege of my colleague, the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. He ruled under the rules of Parliament that the legislation was in order. Mr. Speaker frankly said that he did not want to rule on a constitutional matter, that that was to be dealt with in some other place. The problem is, Mr. Speaker, who has the money to go to the Federal Court and then the Supreme Court? I do not, and I doubt if the Standing Committee on Transport can get a budget for it.
In any case, what has happened has happened before and the Federal Court threw the government out of court. The government had to fork over $100 million in storage payments to the Canadian Wheat Board. Why? Because the government tried to make legislation retroactive. That was a Liberal government. This government is doing exactly the same thing. It is giving legislative effect to a bill that has not even passed Parliament. If

that does not violate a parliamentary democracy and violate our Constitution, I do not know what does.
No self-respecting democratic institution should allow the government of the day, any government of any political stripe at whatever level, to bring into legislative effect and legislative force legislation that has not been dealt with and passed by Parliament and received the signature of the Governor General.
This law has been in effect and enforced since July
1989.	The least the government could do is say that the law does not take effect until the day of Royal Assent, and then it would be doing the right thing in terms of parliamentary process.
This amendment gives the government some time. It can keep this at and east rates legislation in effect for a year. If it has an alternative program, fine, bring it in and the legislation to cover it and then repeal the at and east rates. Instead of that, the government just repeals it. It is perfectly understandable why it is done that way. The government does not want to spend any more money. It has no intention of bringing in a replacement bill.
We have moved an amendment, which we will discuss a little later, that implements a request of the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission. The government will not listen to them. The government has heard them but they did not listen, and for the amount of money that the government thinks it is going to save, it is going to end up costing the Government of Canada more money by the cancellation of this program.
It is going to cost the government in lost jobs, lost income, and lost income tax. It is going to cost it in the lack of a grain handling facility in Saint John, which does not do much for Canada's export position, whether it is for flour or grain. It is likely going to cost it most, if not all, of the operation of the grain terminal in Halifax. Then the hon. member for Halifax states that these people want jobs. Of course they do, so why is he supporting a bill that does away with their jobs? Where does the hon. member for Halifax stand on the jobs that the people in his city want when this legislation is causing them to lose their jobs?
If and when the Dover Flour Mill shuts down, that will decrease our export capacity of flour. More significantly, the feed grain users in Atlantic Canada depend on that terminal to store the feed grain.
Government Orders
The hon. member for Halifax talked about unit trains. I do not know where he has been. The issue of unit trains from Thunder Bay to Atlantic Canada has been studied ad nauseam every year since I have been here, and the costs are pretty high. The government of those days and the government of today does not want to spend any more money and ergo unit trains are not being used. They should be in the winter months. In the summer months we can use the Seaway.
The hon. member is talking about using unit trains. What would you do with 100 cars at 2,000 bushels per car, 100 tonnes per car, and a 100 car unit train that arrives in Saint John? Where are you going to put it? The grain terminal is closed. It arrives in Halifax, where are you going to put it? The aftermath of this legislation means forget about unit trains. Dover Flour Mill will have to bring in just sufficient flour or milling grain to see them through month by month. That is about as much as they can store.
It is going to be a jerk-water operation. It hurts the shippers of malting barley. It hurts the brewery industry. It hurts the shippers of malting barley in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. It hurts the shippers of high grade, high protein milling wheat. It decreases our export capacity and capabilities. We lose what we used to have, a flour and feed grain market in Cuba. Cuba sent sugar and rum to the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union paid us in cash. It was a neat three-way deal. It was in place for about 18 or 20 years. That is down the drain.
There is the whole Caribbean and central American region that is there for us, and what do these guys do? They scrap it. They scrap what we do have, and goodness knows it is little enough.
I do not understand any self-respecting member from Atlantic Canada from any party supporting this legislation. It passes beyond all understanding. I suspect that any member from Atlantic Canada who supports this legislation and all the implications there are to it will rue the day. I can tell them one thing: Do not be a Tory candidate in my part of Canada. You will have to answer for this one, as well as a number of others.


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

June 5, 1990
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I put the question, a vote on Motion No. 1 will be applied to Motions Nos. 3 and 6.
The question is on Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex. 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
We will now go to Motion Nos. 4, 5 and 7.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 2.
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 3.
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 4.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to debate those motions. I note that Motion No. 2 was ruled out of order as it had been dealt with substantially in committee. However, the purpose of the motion was to introduce the option that had been put forward by the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission, the proposal that has been discussed many times in this House.
I would like to turn for a moment to another area. In fact, the effect of the motions would be to kill the bill and leave the status quo. There is another area that has only been touched on briefly with respect to this issue, and that is with respect to the transportation system in this country generally.
It has been asked a number of times in this House why the government persists in pushing this legislation through. It is clear on the face of the bill and all the evidence that has come forth from the committee and through the House that this bill makes no sense.
However, it does make sense in terms of the government's over-all agenda. It is a private agenda, an agenda that has not been discussed openly, but it is there and it can be seen if one looks very closely. That agenda that the government is coming forth with will change the whole face of agriculture in this country, and it will change the face of the transportation of grain in this country.
The elimination of the at and east grain transportation program is simply a rehearsal for the removal of the Crow benefit that is now being enjoyed by western farmers. It is clear that the government is determined to completely dismantle the grain transportation system in this country as we now know it. The elimination of the at and east program is only one item on the government's agenda in its plan to dismantle our grain transportation system and to reintroduce the Crow debate.
This fall we are going to be into the real Crow debate. This is simply, as has been determined before, a miniCrow debate. We had a Crow debate in the early 1980s. Many members who are here today, my senior colleagues, were part of that debate and did an admirable job with respect to that. That is the issue that is in front of us. What we are facing is the whole dismantling of the way we transport grain, the way agriculture survives in this country and the way it is progressing.
There is no consideration for the survival of the family farm. There is no consideration for the survival of the economic regions of this country. There is simply a concern for bottom-line economics which is coming forth.
This Toiy government is very good at tactics and strategy. It has a strategy and it is putting it forth step by step. It was very clear in part of this bill the strategy that was taking place. It is a strategy that is very concerning. What was happening is that some of the members on the committee were falling into that trap.
The hon. member for Halifax stated in committee that if this subsidy goes it is unfair to the maritimes, because the western farmer still has the Crow benefits, still has the Western Grains Transportation Act and the benefits under it. She said that if the maritimes lose the at and east why should western Canadians keep the Crow benefit? That is a dangerous trap. That is the trap that
June 5, 1990

this government wants people to fall into, the talk of the so-called level playing field.
That is not the case. The reason that we have those benefits in the first place, the reason that we have had the Crow rate and now the Crow benefit, and the reason that we have had the at and east program was to allow the regions of this country to develop. That was the purpose of it.
They are removing the Crow benefit. That is not going to help the terminal at Halifax. It is not going to help the terminal at Saint John. It is not going to help agriculture in the maritimes.
When grain is shipped through Halifax and Saint John, it already gets the benefit of the Crow benefit because that benefit applies to Thunder Bay. Grain for export goes from the prairies to Thunder Bay, and then from there on through Halifax and Saint John. The at and east was simply another program to encourage the use of the elevators at Saint John and Halifax. Now that the at and east program is gone those elevators are in deep trouble. We have seen that one has already closed, and the elevator at Halifax is also in a shaky position.
If the Crow benefit goes, that is not going to benefit the maritime farmer. It is simply going to hurt further the average producer, the average family farm in Saskatchewan, in Manitoba, in Alberta, and in parts of British Columbia. What this government has done is laid the groundwork for the removal of the Crow benefit. It is laying a foundation. It is laying a trap which some people are walking into and which we must be very careful that we do not fall into.
If this Confederation means anything to us, if this country means anything to us-and there is a lot of debate about that these days-we have to pay attention to the regions. There are regions that do not have the same advantages as other regions.
We in Saskatchewan know what it is like to live in a province that does not have some of the economic advantages of other provinces. Certainly under a Toiy government, which we have suffered for the last eight years, we now are a have-not province. We know what it is like to be from a region such as the maritimes because we are experiencing that situation now. This is a government that is not planning to better our lot in life. It is not planning to help the average Canadian. This is a bottom
Government Orders
line economic government that is simply wanting to cut the deficit. It is simply looking after the interests of corporations.
What we have had since the Second World War is a de facto agricultural policy that has seen the family farm struggle. It has seen rural Canada disintegrating. Right now we have a severe crisis in rural Canada. Many of the same problems that exist in rural Nova Scotia are exactly the same problems that exist in rural Saskatchewan. The only difference in some cases is that the economic base is different. In some parts of rural Nova Scotia and the rural maritimes, fishing is the economic base and the same is true in Newfoundland, whereas in Saskatchewan the economic base primarily is agriculture.
The fundamental issue that we have to keep in mind-and I remind members to keep it in mind-is that this government has a strategy. It is a strategy that is going to be turning full force in the fall on to the western producers. We will be having a major change in transportation policy. We will be having a major change in support programs for the western farmer and a whole new attitude toward agriculture. I feel very concerned about that. I feel very concerned for the future of my province, for the future of western Canada, for the future of the maritimes, and for the future of Newfoundland. Bypassing this legislation the government is simply laying the groundwork.
I call upon members to do what they can to keep the issue alive and to show the government up for what it is doing. The government knows that this is its plan and does not hide it. One can see that it exists. It is there to be looked at.
In conclusion, I would remind members that we are simply beginning the debate. This a mini-Crow debate. The real Crow debate will begin in the fall when the government finishes its work on the transportation system and the movement of grain in Canada.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I say to my friend for Fraser Valley East that I was here this morning, as was he, at which time I was speaking in support of three amendments put forward by my colleague from Lambton-Middlesex. Now I am delighted to rise and support a set of amendments put

June 5, 1990
Government Orders
forward by the gentleman from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.
I am surprised the amendments got by the Chair because the effect of the amendments, without telling the Chair how to do its job, as I understand it, would be to negate the bill effectively. There is another way to do that, simply by voting against the bill, but we will not be choosey on this side of the House. If we can beat some sense into the government by whatever means, we intend to do it.
That brings me to what I thought was a courageous move earlier today by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants, a gentleman who is normally in support of the government. He is a Conservative. He has run and been elected many times under the Conservative banner. He and I disagree on many issues, and that is as much to his credit as it is to mine, I am sure. However I do not want to talk about our differences today. What I want to do is salute him and the courage he exercised earlier today. I am sure he will follow through with a vote against the bill later on today.
The gentleman from Annapolis Valley-Hants, although he bears the same party label as those who have sponsored this bill, although he is normally a supporter of the Conservative government in this Chamber, gave notice today-and it took courage; I congratulate him- that he would be voting effectively against the government in this measure which is now before the House.
By way of contrast to what the gentleman from Annapolis Valley-Hants did, it is instructive to recall what the gentleman from Halifax West did, he who has stevedores, longshoremen, elevator operators, and other people in the dozens in the port of Halifax who are his constituents. We have in the one case a gentleman from Annapolis Valley-Hants who does not have very many constituents whose livelihood is directly at stake, although in fairness to him he does have some farmers whose feed prices will be adversely affected if this bill goes through.


An hon. member:: Once the beef prices go up.


Roger Simmons: I do not know how much they are going to go up. Did I suggest to the gentleman that I knew how much they were going to go up?


Mr. Hughes:: Nobody was suggesting that you know what you are talking about.


Roger Simmons: The gentleman from Macleod shows signs of stirring and having some interest in this particular matter. We welcome him to the debate. It is by far his best contribution to a debate during this entire session.
I say to both friends opposite that I do not know in dollars and cents terms how much will be the difference. I know that the impact will be adverse. One does not have to be terribly bright to figure that out. The impact will be adverse.
I also listened to the representatives of those farmers and those grain elevator operators who came before the committee during committee stage. One only has to read the transcripts of the committee hearings, which I have done, to find that people like Mr. Keith Russell, Executive Director of the Atlantic Farmers Council, told the committee as recently as May 17 when this bill was before it that there is a fair degree of concern among farmers in Atlantic Canada about this matter.
I was anticipating the next question as to why it is that I from what is essentially a fishing constituency am standing here right now talking about an issue that is essentially a farm and transportation issue. There is a very simple answer to that question.
While it is true that almost every one of the 151 communities that make up the riding of Burin-St. George's have an involvement in the fishery and are currently being devastated by the downturn in the fishery both inshore and offshore, it is also true that there are three important farming pockets in the riding of Burin- St. George's.
There is the very fertile Codroy Valley. Those of you who have gone to Newfoundland by Port aux Basques will be aware that after getting off the ferry in Port aux Basques and driving the Trans-Canada Highway across the island, within 20 miles of leaving Port aux Basques you will pass on your left particularly, but on your right as well, the very fertile and very picturesque Codroy Valley. It has a farm community which has thrived over the-years and which will be hurt by the obvious increase in feed prices to be triggered by the bill now before the House should it pass.
June 5, 1990

There is a second pocket of farmers a little farther up the highway in what we know as the Robinson's area: the communities of Robinson's, McKays, Jeffries and so on. There is a third pocket on the Burin Peninsula centred around the community of Winterland.
Just a little footnote here for the benefit of my good friend from Macleod: between 1934 and 1949, during that 15-year interregnum there was no elected government in Newfoundland. The democratic government, a Tory government by the way, which had been elected in 1932 suspended itself and in effect voted itself out of office. That must have been the one and only time that a Tory government ever did that. It invited in a British appointed Commission of Government to run things. A governor plus six commissioners were appointed by the British government, three Britishers by birth, three Newfoundlanders by birth, plus the governor who was normally a Britisher by birth.
That seven-member commission was the government for a 15-year period, known as the Commission of Government. It did a lot of clumsy things, a lot of inefficient things, and a lot of undemocratic things. One of the better things that the Commission of Government did during that period was to encourage farming in Newfoundland, in particular to set up a number of farm communities for returning veterans, people who had come back from the Second World War. One such community was Winterland in my riding of Burin-St. George's, as well as some others.
Do I understand that my time is so soon running out, Mr. Speaker? There are many more things I would like to say about these particular amendments. In my digression I wanted to talk about the particular import of this bill to the farm community in Newfoundland, the three pockets in my riding, as well as other farm pockets not in my riding but elsewhere in Newfoundland.
Since time is running out, let me say in conclusion that we are against this particular bill and we are going to try and defeat it in any way we can. We believe that by voting for the amendments of the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre we can send a signal that we are
Government Orders
against the principle and the substance of this bill. I intend to do that.
I believe the gentleman from Fraser Valley East is almost persuaded he ought to do likewise. If so, that will be to his credit, unlike the gentleman from Halifax West who not only betrayed the workers in his riding who are depending on this at and east, but never had the courage to stay in the House and register his vote at the end of the discussion.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, I am just going to take a few minutes. I think the member for Halifax West made an attempt to defend himself in the eyes of his own constituents. In the process, he attempted to make it seem that the benefit of this bill is not for Halifax and the east coast but for inland Canada and for the prairies. While there is some benefit as far as western Canada is concerned, the amount of grain that we ship through Halifax and Saint John is minuscule compared to the over-all shipment of grain.
The Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission, regardless of what the minister has attempted to put before us, made a number of attempts to have the government hold off on this bill until a number of problems have been solved. The Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission is not a fly-by-night group. It is a well established and respected organization representing a cross-section of Atlantic Canada and its transportation needs.
It pointed out in its presentation to the government and the committee that the total identifiable cost of the elimination of these particular rates in the form of wages paid to the people of the community is something over $34 million. They consider this to be a fairly conservative estimate.
Furthermore, it recognized the considerable spin-off activity in the community relative to the at and east rates. This bill will result in the elimination of a source of economic activity for Halifax and Saint John, as well as a source of materials of feed and grain that has allowed them to make use of Canadian products.
These motions, if passed, would keep the bill in place, since it appears the government is intent on eliminating these rates. This would give the commission an opportunity to see what must be done before this bill is put into

June 5, 1990
Government Orders
effect. It has made a somewhat ridiculous suggestion considering that we want to make Canada secure in food products and that Canada buys Canadian products as much as possible. It says, "Okay, if we cannot have western or Ontario barley, give us the right to buy our barley from France". In other words, instead of shipping our grain to the maritimes, we should buy barley from France and other European countries, ship the barley to the east coast of Canada and use it there because it is cheaper to ship it across the Atlantic Ocean than it is to ship it by rail, if the at and east rates are disallowed.
The second suggestion was that if it could not buy the western products, then the federal government should possibly eliminate the countervail duties on American com so that instead of buying the Canadian feed it could then buy American corn at a cheaper rate and use that instead of the western or the Ontario grain.
The third possibility which it suggested should be explored was changing the structure of moving grain by rail, gathering up unit trains in the west and moving directly to Halifax by rail, thereby bypassing the seaway and possibly bringing that grain to the east coast at a cheaper rate. If economic, this proposal would require federal assistance. Government-owned hopper cars which are presently used in the west would then be used to travel further eastward. These are all ideas which the Atlantic transportation commission suggested should be considered.
The two groups of amendments we are looking at today attempt to allow the maritime provinces time to carefully examine these proposals to determine how the legislation will work, or whether we should return to the old structure and make as much use as possible of the at and east rates to allow the elevators to continue to operate and to allow the flour mills, the port, and the livestock operators to keep operating as they have.
Mr. Speaker, I speak in favour of these motions which have the effect of leaving the bill as it was before, that is, keeping the status quo. I suggest that if we vote for either group of motions, or both preferably, we would give the maritime provinces an opportunity to examine their own situation, an opportunity which they have not had until now.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to participate again today in this debate at report stage on the latest series of amendments.
I could not help but listen from behind the curtain to my colleague from Halifax West in his passionate plea of ignorance on the entire issue of the at and east freight rate subsidy. Unfortunately, the Member for Halifax West, or perhaps we should now call him the member from fait accompli, because every time we are faced with this particular piece of legislation and its negative effects, he throws his hands up in the air in a fit of not being able to do anything and says it is a fait accompli. I hate to tell him this but this is not an executive democracy, it is a parliamentary democracy.
We know full well that the government opposite has seen fit in its wisdom, or more particularly lack thereof, to introduce this piece of legislation last June. Because the regulations went into effect July 15, the hon. member for Halifax West would have us just sit on our hands and button our lips and not speak for the people of Atlantic Canada.
It is very clear that if Bill C-26 goes through, this abomination on the grain transportation industry in Atlantic Canada, there will be untold havoc in our agriculture industry. The hon. member for Halifax West may think that we have to adjust, and I heard him address this particular issue in his speech and say very clearly that the stevedores in Halifax just want to get rid of this and get on with it. That is simply not true. The stevedores in Halifax have been saying that if the at and east bill is flawed, if we have to reduce subsidies, then we have to look at the alternatives, and consider them first, not after you let the horse out of the bam and close the door.
According to the committee hearing of May 17, the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre questioned Mr. Russell from the Atlantic Farmers Council. He asked about the effect of no consultation, no remedial measures, and no new programs on trying to offset the negative effects of the loss of the at and east:
If there is nothing to replace this program, what does that do to
the potential growth of agriculture in the Maritimes?
Anyone in this House who claims to know anything about agriculture knows that the Atlantic agricultural industry is one that has a great deal of difficulty. It is far away from the larger markets. We have smaller farms to
June 5, 1990

work. We know these facts exist for the agricultural industry in Atlantic Canada. Mr. Russell from the Atlantic Canada Farmers Council said that if this bill went through:
It would set it back two to four years while we made a
readjustment.
This is not rhetoric from the other side. This is coming from an individual who represents, and represents very well, the agricultural industry in Atlantic Canada.
Every piece of documentation that the committee heard while coming to its report, every piece of evidence it was given said that if this bill goes through at this particular point in time, it will cause untold devastation not just in the shipping industry, not just for the grain terminals, not just for the Dover Flour Mill in Halifax, but potentially could be disastrous for the competitiveness of the Atlantic agricultural industry.
If the member opposite needs more evidence then perhaps he should reread the evidence presented to the committee.
The only thing we can do is to ensure the bill does not pass. The government seems to be concerned. It is johnny-come-lately on this, in a conversion on the road to Damascus. If the bill does not pass the government will be able to sit down and talk to the industry. It will be able to look at the proposals set forward by the Atlantic Provinces Agricultural Council for input and changes necessary to ensure that the adjustment which would take place with the reduction of the at and east over a period of time would not lead to a lessening of competition in the Atlantic agricultural industry and we would not see the economic devastation that we currently see with the grain elevator that is now closed. We are not going to get the one in Saint John open again. The 65 per cent reduction of traffic through the Halifax grain terminal not only jeopardizes the future viability of the Halifax grain terminal, but also may jeopardize the future viability of Dover Mills, the only flour mill in Atlantic Canada.
I urge all my colleagues to listen to the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants. My goodness, he is a veteran of this place and he has fought many partisan battles. They should go back and listen. They should call up his speech today on Oasis and listen to what he said. They should listen particularly to the member for Halifax
Government Orders
West, a senior colleague from his home province. He said that sometimes the government must listen to the other side of this hall. It must look across and try to get the good out of the debates that take place in the House. If it did that, he said that it would do what he is going to do. It would support at least a five-year hold on the effect of the bill coming into place, or indeed can it.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed Bill S-16, an act to amend the Act of Incorporation of the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy to which the concurrence of this House is desired.

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 Comox-Alberni-Fisheries; the hon. member for Park-dale-High Park-External Affairs; the hon. member for Ottawa West-Transport.


RAILWAY ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-26, an act to amend the Railway Act (grain and flour subsidies), as reported (with an amendment) from a legislative committee; and Motion No. 4 (Mr. Laporte).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 4, standing in the name of Mr. Laporte, and applies to Motions Nos. 5 and 7.
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.

June 5, 1990
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage now before the House.
The first question is on Motion No. 1, standing in the name of Mr. Ferguson, which applies to Motions Nos. 3 and 6.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 3 and 6 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 4 standing in the name of Mr. Laporte. The vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 5 and 7.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you will find there is a disposition to apply the vote taken on the prior amendment to this one.

June 5, 1990


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 5 and 7 lost.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: that the bill be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: 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):: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, maybe someday I will win one. On this one again I suggest that you would find a disposition of all members to apply the vote on the

June 5, 1990
Private Members' Business
amendments to the concurrence motion, in reverse, unfortunately.
++NAYS
Members


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I missed the first vote, but I would like to have my vote included with those of the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
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   THE ENVIRONMENT INDOOR AIR QUALITY
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should implement a national strategy for reducing the threats posed by exposure to contaminants in the air indoors that would include a national research centre, technology development programs, a set of national standards on indoor air quality and an information campaign designed to raise awareness of and provide advice on indoor air contaminants.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this afternoon to present this motion on indoor air quality.
June 5, 1990



This is an issue of which many Canadian citizens are acutely aware because of the effect it has on their personal health. I do not think any incident could better give people the understanding of how important the issue of the indoor environment is than the story of the events that transpired in Pennsylvania in 1976.
At that time there was a retired air force captain, Ray Brennan, who was 61 years old. He had been retired for a few years and was having a few heart problems, but he was a keen Legionnaire. He was the bookkeeper for American Legion No. 42 in Towanda, Pennsylvania. As his sister said, all he lived for was to go to Legion conventions.
He set off for Philadelphia in July 1976 to attend a state Legion convention, an affair which typically consisted of lots of good times for people who had fought in foreign wars. He came home a bit tired, his sister recalled, and three days later he had chest pains, a fever, and some difficulty breathing. His sister said he did not want to go to the hospital. "We had to fight him all the way", she said. That very night, with his lungs filling with blood, Brennan died of an apparent heart attack.
That was July 26, 1976. Brennan was the first. Three days later in Clearfield, Pennsylvania, Legionnaire Frank Aveni, 60 years olds, died in much the same way. So did three other Pennsylvanian veterans. On Sunday, August 1, there were six more ranging in age from 39 years to 82 years scattered in towns all around the state of Pennsylvania. All of them had just one thing in common. They had all attended the Legion convention held in Philadelphia from July 21 to July 24, 1976. All of them came down with the same signs and symptoms: headaches, chest pains, high fevers, and lung congestion.
It seemed as though the terror spread without any rhyme or reason. Charles Seidel, an 82-year old World War I veteran from Reading, Pennsylvania, died. People in Williamstown were surprised when John Ralph, 41 years old, suddenly died. People did not want to go to his funeral for fear that they were going to catch something.
Then all of a sudden it seemed to level off. There were no instances of victims passing on this disease to any of their families or friends, so the initial fears of some kind of rampaging epidemic were quelled. In the end, 34
Private Members' Business
people who had attended the Legion convention in Philadelphia in July 1976 died.
As we all now know, they died of what has become known as legionnaire's disease. A bacterium, now called legionella, was the cause. The transmission of that disease is still not completely understood, but we do know that it is caused by inhalation, not consumption, of small particles of contaminated water or even soil. If you were to drink contaminated fluid it would not affect you, but if you inhale little particles of it it could.
The story of the tragic events that unfolded in 1976 in Pennsylvania where legionnaire's disease first occurred highlights as well as anything the fact that the indoor environment is intricately connected with the health and well-being of people who live, work, visit conventions, and do all of the things that are a part of normal modem life indoors.
The motion that I propose is that the government implement a national strategy for reducing the threats posed by exposure to contaminants in indoor air. This strategy would include a national research centre, technology development programs, a set of national standards on indoor air quality, and an information campaign designed to raise awareness and to provide advice on indoor air contamination.
We do not have to look to the United States or further afield than Canada to find examples of important, well-known government programs to deal with indoor air problems. The most recent one in the federal experience was the program a few years ago that assisted homeowners who removed urea formaldehyde foam insulation from their homes. It was a program that the Government of Canada assisted in to ensure that money was available to people who had to incur the cost of removing this foam from their walls and buildings because it was believed that improperly installed the foam insulation was causing health problems in people who lived in close proximity to it.
The fact is that North Americans spend over 90 per cent of their time indoors, either at home, school, or work as well as inside recreation and transportation facilities. Some people have estimated that in Canada this figure is as high as 98 per cent because of our more inclement climate.

Private Members' Business
Prompted by the energy crisis, construction techniques have tended to focus on airtight buildings with a dependence on mechanical ventilation systems. There has been a tendency to view the operation of ventilation systems solely in the context of economic efficiency, that is cutting energy costs, and rightly so.
However, more and more people are becoming aware of the untoward health effects that living and working in these airtight energy efficient buildings can have on them, either because of the lack of ventilation or some of the construction or paint materials that surround them all the time.
More and more consumer and office products are made up with a complex array of synthetic chemicals. These products include the furniture that we use and sit on, the paint on the walls, and the materials that are used in insulation.
We now have for the first time something known as the sick building syndrome. It is the term that is being used to describe large outbreaks of a whole range of illnesses that occur from irritations of the eyes, nose and throat, to major respiratory problems and even in some cases cancers. These health problems ultimately contribute to productivity loss in the workplace and greater allergic sensitivity in the home and in the workplace. In the case of some indoor pollutants, long-term physical impairment can result.
People who live in the national capital region, particularly those who are employed by the federal government, are well aware of the problems that have occurred at the building complex within sight of here across the river at Terrasses de la Chaudiere in Hull, Quebec, known affectionately in English by those who work there as Terrasses de la Shoddy-Air.
This huge new building was leased in the late 1970s by the federal government. Complaints began almost as soon as people began to occupy that building. Unions and researchers indicated that 97 per cent of the workers in that building reported a deterioration in their general health since they had been located there. Some 54 per cent reported more fatigue, 46 per cent experienced frequent headaches, and 43 per cent reported chronic dryness of the nose and throat.
In 1981 about 300 employees of a Ford of Canada assembly plant took sick after returning to work after a nine-day shutdown of the plant. Pumps for fluids used to
cool machines were shut off when the plant closed and bacteria in the coolant had multiplied during the shutdown and spread through the air when the machines started up again.
This is similar to the problem that was ultimately identified as the cause of legionnaire's disease in Philadelphia where the ventilation system connected to the air conditioning system was the source, through the contaminated water that was around it, of the spread of the legionella bacterium among the people who were attending that convention.
The Public Service Alliance of Canada has identified a number of buildings in different places in Canada as problem buildings where their members are frequently experiencing problems related to the sick building syndrome including Terrasses de la Chaudiere, the Portage IV complex, the Harry Hayes Building in Calgary, the Taxation Centre in Winnipeg, and the RCMP buildings in Comer Brook. My staff complain in the West Block on Parliament Hill from time to time.
These are problems that surround us. They are common, everyday problems that workers in Canada are dealing with. They are health problems. They directly affect the productivity of our workers, and they are meritorious of the urgent attention of the Government of Canada.
What are some of the causes of the pollution? One that is of very great importance is radon. Radon, as I am sure you know, Mr. Speaker, is a colourless, odourless gas that occurs naturally. It occurs through the deterioration of natural materials. It causes no problem at all in very low quantities but when it gets trapped in a building problems can be significant. In fact, it is believed that it is second only to cigarette smoking as a cause of lung cancer, with some estimates being as high as 5 per cent to 20 per cent of lung cancer being caused by radon being trapped within residential buildings because they are not properly sealed.
There is a series of concerns about biological contaminants. There is carbon monoxide which at low levels causes fatigue and headaches in healthy people. It can cause chest pains in people with heart conditions and can be fatal at high doses.
There is nitrogen dioxide which results from various kinds of heaters and unvented gas stoves. There are problems of organic gases often resulting from paint, paint strippers, solvents, aerosol sprays and so on which result in eye, nose and throat irritations. They can result
June 5, 1990

in loss of co-ordination, damage to liver and other very serious ailments.
There is formaldehyde, which results from pressed wood products, and UFFI, as well as environmental tobacco smoke, asbestos and lead. These are all common, everyday materials that we know about and hear about which are causing problems for the people of Canada in their places of residence and work.
I suggest that the time has come in Canada to address these problems in an organized and concentrated fashion. That is why I have suggested that by way of a national strategy the government take on a number of initiatives. I do not think these involve great direct expenditure of public money, but I do think that there will be direct benefit to the economy of Canada if we address these problems. Benefit will be realized through increased productivity in the workplace and increased job and worker satisfaction.
It is also important that we recognize the interrelationship of so many aspects of our lives, that we begin to realize that environmental problems exist at all levels. Global environmental problems, of course, concern us all. In fact, the ability of mankind to survive depends on addressing some of those important issues.
Recognizing the importance of integrating mankind with the environment in which we live is also of great importance, whether that is the natural outdoors environment or the indoors environment. It is also important, as a matter of health policy, that we not merely look to find cures for ailments but rather that we look repeatedly to the causes of ailments to see whether we cannot remove some of those. Some of them require us to address these important environmental issues.
The federal government is already involved in some of these issues through the National Research Council which devises the building standards for Canada, through CMHC and through involvement, as the largest employer in Canada, with its employees and the unions that represent them. So I suggest that it would not be too much for the government to co-ordinate, through a national research centre on indoor environmental issues, the research that is currently being done in the federal government; to put together a set of technology development programs; to devise national standards on indoor
Business of the House
air quality and to begin to raise the awareness of people of the importance of these problems and help individuals, employers and building owners to understand how they can contribute to the solutions to the problems that are created by indoor air contamination.
Therefore I propose that the government implement a national strategy to reduce the threats from exposure to contaminants in the air indoors.
I believe that this is a very important health problem for all Canadians, and that as a matter of health policy, all governments, not only the federal government but also the provincial governments, must take an interest in these problems and find solutions to the medical problems caused by environmental factors indoors.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the House Leader.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to interrupt the member, but it is better that I interrupt him before he begins his remarks than during his remarks.
There have been discussions among the three parties and I believe you will find consent for the following two motions.
The first one is:
That, from the date of this Order until June 30, 1990, notwithstanding any Standing Orders, whenever the House sits beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, calls for quorum and dilatory motions shall not be receivable by the Chair between 6 o'clock p.m. and 8 o'clock p.m.
The second motion is:
That, further to Order made Thursday, May 31, 1990, on Wednesday, June 6,1990, recorded divisions requested on any motion in that day's Supply proceedings up to 9.45 o'clock p.m., be deferred until 10 o'clock p.m., provided that, if debate on motions numbered 1, 2 and 3 is concluded prior to 9.45 o'clock p.m., Members may be recognized for the purpose of debating the motion for concurrence in

June 5, 1990
Private Members' Business
the Main Estimates standing in the name of the President of the Treasury Board.


The Acting Speaker (Mir. Paproski):: Members have heard the terms of the motions. Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motions agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Manley that:
In the opinion of this House, the government should implement a national strategy for reducing the threats posed by exposure to contaminants in the air indoors that would include a national research centre, technology development programs, a set of national standards on indoor air quality and an information campaign designed to raise awareness of and provide advice on indoor air contaminants.
Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House draws attention to a very important national issue which concerns all Canadians. Whether we are in the home or the workplace, the quality of the air we breathe has a direct impact on our health. With our cold climate and the time that we spend indoors we could say that indoor air quality is very much a Canadian concern.
The importance of programs related to this cannot be over-estimated. Over and above the health concerns there is the enormous economic aspect of this issue. There is convincing evidence that employers can enhance the productivity of their employees by providing them with a well-designed and ventilated workplace.
Efforts to address this challenge on a national scale are certainly vital and the government recognizes this fact. The hon. member's motion is seriously flawed in that he ignores and downplays the important work that is already underway and the major contribution that is already being made by scientists and engineers across Canada.
Many government departments and agencies, as well as private sector institutions, are working together on
this problem. There are clear responsibilities and recognized leadership roles, and I would like to speak specifically about the National Research Council of Canada. I feel that the motion is a swipe at the NRC and the work of the people at the NRC's Institute for Research and Construction. By calling for the creation of a national research centre and technology development programs, the member shows that he may not be fully aware of all of the programs and the role that is already being played in this field.
In fact, the NRC's Institute for Research and Construction already is the national research centre for the Canadian construction industry. NRC engineers, scientists, architects and technologists at the institute pool their professional talents to develop cost-effective technology for safe, durable construction.
An important part of this work is related to indoor air quality. The institute helps building owners and managers across the country address ventilation and air quality problems through new engineering systems and other technologies related to employee safety and comfort. IRC also performs its own research to improve ventilation as a means of achieving good indoor air quality in projects of benefit both in the home and the workplace and it is specifically concerned with airtight construction techniques.
As we all know, airtight construction measures can save energy but they also create indoor air quality problems and magnify the effects of emissions from new construction materials. Last year, for example, the institute's researchers made important strides in this field by developing reliable procedures for studying the airflow patterns in apartment buildings. This work will help engineers and scientists identify air leakage characteristics of buildings and this, in turn, helps in defining the ventilation needs of newly constructed buildings.
The institute is working with the Canadian Home Builders' Association in this and other work and it is thus truly linked to the national effort. An example of the national scope of this work is a recent NRC collaboration with the Home Builders' Association to survey the airtightness of hundreds of homes across the country. This survey and other studies will help define the need for mechanical ventilation systems in homes.
June 5, 1990

In the future the NRC institute will be developing computer models and other information systems to help transfer technology about physical and human performance associated with indoor air quality. This information will be made available to building operators in all parts of Canada to use as design guidelines that link the physical attributes of space to its intended use.
This work is definitely tied into a national strategy as it and all of the Institute for Research and Construction is overseen by the nationally representative Canadian Construction Research Board. This board includes the leaders of the construction industry and the unions as well as public sector executives from the provincial and federal departments and agencies and universities with an interest in this field.
Furthermore, the NRC, under the terms of its act, has an important national leadership role in all areas of national construction standards as it is responsible for the development of the national building fire codes. The NRC's national codes are praised world-wide and reflect the state of the art in construction regulation.
The code development process is reviewed for its consultative approach which involves over 300 volunteers across Canada. The institute's employees are working constantly with the code committees and with the provinces and territories to harmonize regulations across this country and to help ensure quality construction techniques on national standards.
The success of the institute's approach to the national public building codes has been recognized in many awards and citations. Last year, for example, the prestigious Royal Bank Award was presented to Dr. Robert Leggett, the first director of the NRC's division of building research and the man who guided the code process for more than 20 years. Clearly, we have a well established and widely supported system for setting national building standards that does not need to be duplicated or undermined by a new one.
The hon. member's motion also advocates a national information campaign. He is clearly unaware of the efforts being made by the NRC and the Institute for Research and Construction to make technology transfer a part of all research programs. For over 25 years the NRC has been presenting an across Canada seminar series called Building Science Insight. Last year, for example, about 1,400 professionals in 14 cities attended
Private Members' Business
that conference. In these seminars, technical experts provide authoritative answers to a host of issues such as material selection, design details and maintenance practices.
The institute also spreads information about its research through hundreds of scientific papers and reports as well as in newsletters distributed across the country through the regional chapters of the Canadian Construction Research Board. The institute also spreads the word about the latest building technologies through its key role in scientific and technical training. An increasing number of young researchers are learning their trade with NRC. They then take their knowledge of the latest technologies in indoor air quality and other areas with them to careers in industry and government.
Information on air quality techniques and other new building technologies are also passed on through NRC's construction technology advisory network.
Thirty-six advisers, with about 700 years experience in total, serve clients across the country. The advisers help local building industries through technical advice and guidance on the evaluation procedures of NRC's Canadian Construction Materials Centre. They also help firms access NRC's vast store of technical expertise and even arrange support for air quality research and other projects under the NRC's Industrial Research Assistance Program.
In conclusion, I would like to commend the hon. member for his desire to draw attention to the indoor air quality issue and for his support of scientific and technical approaches to the problem. However, I believe that we should not ignore the tremendous contribution already being made in this field. There are excellent programs under way at Health and Welfare Canada, CMHC, private sector institutions, and the National Research Council's Institute for Research in Construction.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to engage in the debate today. I want to congratulate my colleague from Ottawa South for bringing this motion forward.
The subject of indoor air quality, whether at home, in the industrial workplace, in aircraft, or in any other area, is one that is topical. It has been for some years and, as

June 5, 1990
Private Members' Business
yet, has received rather scant attention from government and industry.
In 1981, May Britt Carlson, who was the labour attache to the Swedish embassy, travelled for years from one end of Canada to the other addressing labour, schools, workshops, and senior public servants from departments of labour and departments of health in various provincial jurisdictions. She tried at that time to draw attention to the major problems being created and the major health risks caused by poor indoor air quality, particularly in offices and in industry across Canada and around the world.
While there has been some research and there have been some laws passed, and some enforcement, the degree of concern necessary to do something serious about the problem of indoor air quality in Canada has left a lot to be desired.
The motion before us, and I will read it into the record, states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should implement a national strategy for reducing the threats posed by exposure to contaminants in the air indoors that would include a national research centre, technology development programs, a set of national standards on indoor air quality and an information campaign designed to raise awareness of and provide advice on indoor air contaminants.
It is a worthwhile motion. I am glad it is here and hope it is not talked out. It will serve a major purpose in helping to focus attention on the problems of inadequate laws and particularly inadequate enforcement.
While the intent is proper and laudable, there is a problem in the attitude, and that is an attitude prevalent in almost all law-making institutions in Canada. It is kind of a legal mind-set that, if we change the law or educate ourselves, then something will happen. It is my experience, and the experience of literally millions of Canadians in industrial workplaces across Canada, that no matter what laws one has and no matter how much education one has, if you do not have enforcement mechanisms-whether they be public enforcement or self-enforcement-in the work place, then nothing worthwhile is going to be done.
I want to give an example of this. I will not take my limited time to illustrate all the kinds of sickness hazards that exist due to poor indoor air quality. I think those are
well known. They can be looked up by anyone with an interest.
I want to refer to one classic example in my own province of British Columbia that shows how a vague law can be much more worthwhile than a law that spells out everything. What is important is that the government has the political will to see that something actually gets done in the workplace and in homes where it matters to people.
In the late 1960s, some of us in the B.C. forest industry discovered a dilapidated old copy of something called the Factories Act. This was legislation stemming from the early 1930s. About all it had to say about air quality was that the air should be clean and that there should be a healthy work environment. It lacked any specificity at all. Because of that and as soon as we had a government that was prepared to act-unfortunately it was there only from 1972 to 1975-suddenly we had major clean-ups in factories all over British Columbia without a sentence of law being changed.
I want to say exactly what the situation was. We had this law on the books. When we phoned Victoria in the late 1960s, no department of government could tell us which department was responsible for the legislation or who had to enforce it. Later when we-the NDP-went into government, we found out when the government changed that there were only two people in the entire province on staff to enforce that law. They were supposed to inspect annually every factory-old and new- and every industrial undertaking in the province before it opened. We asked them: "How did you do this job?"
They said: "We did telephone book inspections." We asked: "Do you mean to say you just phoned companies and asked them if they were in compliance with the law?" They answered: "No, we did not have time to do that. We just wrote the names in the telephone books into our annual reports." That was a classic case of lack of political will. We did not change an item in that legislation. Because we had inspectors in every region of the province that co-operated with both labour and management and went around the work sites, we had major clean-ups far more than anybody had ever dreamed, and without compulsion.
Even if we could pass this motion, there has been a total lack of political will evidenced on the other side of the House. It is six years, almost to the day, since Bill C-45 was passed to look after the occupational health and safety interests of employees of the House of

Commons. Part III would set up joint health and safety committees with some teeth and influence in this place so that we could clean up the problems in the Wellington and Confederation Buildings having to do with asbestos.
People are working in asbestos and do not know it. They do not know what to do about it when they do find it, and nobody makes them do anything about it even when it is discovered. This government has simply refused to proclaim Part III which it, we, and the Liberal Party all passed almost six years ago to the day. That shows the kind of lack of political will there is here.
While I support wholeheartedly the motion of my colleague from Ottawa South, until we get a government with some political will, I doubt that it will do much good. I think the hon. member for Ottawa South will probably agree with me when I point out that we do not even need a new national research centre. I think the member would probably agree that the Canadian Centre of Occupational Health and Safety might be a good place from which to start.
After a great deal of pressure from this side of the House both from our party and the Liberal Party, the government has finally agreed in a half-baked sort of way to do what it can to keep the centre limping along at least until the next election. That is the hope of all of us. By giving them this job to do we could not only have some excellent expertise readily available, but we could give that institution a new lease on life by giving it another major project that they already have some experience in to be able to conduct some work on behalf of all of us.
I said that I was not going to comment in detail on many of the specific problems, but I would like to urge all hon. members and anyone in the public who is interested in the air quality in their homes, their factories, or their workplaces, to see a Public Service Alliance of Canada film that I attended the premiere of a few months ago on the sick building syndrome. Watching a few minutes of that video would do more to convince all of us how serious these problems really are, not just for our employees or for employees generally, but also for
Private Members' Business
those of us who work or live in buildings that are still not healthy places.
The Public Service Alliance of Canada did a commendable job in producing a film that the layman can understand. Again I urge all members to view it. I will not say any more at this point except to say-and I am not giving any hints to people out there in the workplace-that we know of the sick building syndrome in Ottawa and of some of the towers that we have had here, resulting from the energy crisis and the NEP related laws a few years ago.
Sometimes I think that a sledgehammer through a few windows around this capital would do a lot more to clean up and create a healthy workplace than lobbying for laws and enforcement to get some fresh air into some of these buildings. Better that than wait months and perhaps years more before we finally get a government with the gumption and the nerve actually to do something about its problems.
[Translation\


Mr. Jacques Tetreault (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to provide this House with an update on recent and current initiatives undertaken by Health and Welfare Canada to maintain and improve the health of federal government employees. Not the least of these is the department's ongoing investigation and monitoring of indoor air quality in facilities where its employees work. However, experience has shown that problems of indoor air quality often arise in conjuction with other problems in the work environment. And so, before speaking specifically of recent actions connected with indoor air quality control, I think it would be opportune to situate those activities within the broader framework of the department's overall approach to maintaining a healthy workforce. I am certain that the hon. member, given his obvious interest in the health and well-being of public servants, will find the following thumbnail sketch of Health and Welfare's activity in this important area both valuable and informative.
Health and Welfare Canada is fully cognizant of the threat posed to the health of its employees by exposure to contaminants in the air inside office buildings and has, for some time now, been taking countermeasures to ensure against this potential danger. This mission is carried out by the Public Service Health Directorate of the Medical Services Branch, which provides a high

June 5, 1990
Private Members' Business
quality and comprehensive program of occupational and environmental health services to client groups. These services consist of health protection and promotion activities designed to support and enhance the physical, mental and social well-being of clients, and include: environmental and health surveillance that focuses on the health and well-being of the individual and the physical environment where people work; education and health promotion activities aimed at encouraging healthy living and working habits and the reduction of detrimental or hazardous activities in the workplace, at home, and in the community; counselling and employee assistance services to assist, support and enhance the ability of federal public servants to carry out their activities and responsibilities in the workplace in a safe, healthy productive manner; and consultative and advisory services to federal departments concerning the health of employees in the workplace.
The Public Service Health Directorate is responsible for providing these services to federal public servants, people working in federal facilities, residents of Indian communities, the travelling public, V.I.P. visitors to Canada, and in the Yukon Territory, for the provision of environmental health services on behalf of the Yukon Territorial Government. It is also worth mentioning that the Public Service Health Program co-ordinates these activities and services with other departments and agencies of the federal government and other sectors of the Canadian health care system.
The Public Service Health activity maintains an occupational health program for more than 240,000 employees in the Public Service of Canada. Its tasks are to promote occupational health and safety; to provide health services designed to ensure the health and wellbeing of all federal employees, regardless of location; and to minimize the incidence of work-related illness. These tasks are carried out by a variety of professional staff including Environmentel Health Officers, Occupational Health Nurses, Employee Assistance Advisors/ Consultants and licensed physicians. The Public Service Health Program also operates a clinic in Ottawa which is the main vehicle for providing health services to federal employees in the National Capital Region and the foreign service. There is also an Occupational Health Unit which is responsible for the provision of consultative, field and analytical services to regional personnel
concerned with occupational and environmental health programs.
The Employee Assistance Program, which is part of the Public Service Health Program, is designed to help organizations implement procedures to effectively prevent employee problems from affecting their job performance and to create a route whereby employees with a problem are referred to the best professional resource available. In compliance with the Treasury Board policy of 1977, Employee Assistance Services are available at every federal government worksite.
Pre-employment and periodic health examinations are conducted on many occupational groups of federal public servants in order to protect their health and safety, that of their co-workers, and the general public. A major review of this activity, with participation from other federal departments including the Department of National Defence, Corrections Canada and Transport Canada is scheduled for completion in 1990. Among other things, there will be an attempt to replace routine annual examinations with screening examinations tailored to the needs of specific occupational groups.
The Occupational Health Unit of the Public Service Health organization provides analytical and field services which includes special investigations and studies of specific work sites; analysis of data, samples and specimens; remedial recommendations, where appropriate; educational sessions for occupational health staff and employing departments; plus technical support for professional staff in the field. Assistance is also provided to regionally based Environmental Health Officers across the country who deal with environmental conditions and hazards to the health of public servants in the workplace. They provide services which include monitoring, surveillance and educational services to all federal facilities and workplaces.
It is the Environmental Health Officers who carry out investigations of air quality complaints, normally at the request of federal government departments. They can request a stop work order if a serious hazard is found in a public service workplace and will make recommendations to correct the problem or remove the risk. They liaise with other departments and agencies such as Labour Canada, Public Works and Environment Canada. They co-operate in solving problems and exchange professional information about areas of mutual concern.
June 5, 1990

They work closely with departmental managers and health and safety committees.
Having described the program structure by which Health and Welfare Canada carries out its health in the workplace responsibilities, I would now like to mention a few of the more outstanding examples of indoor air contaminants investigations recently carried out, since it is this particular area of this activity that interests the hon. member.
On October 29, 1988, the Department of National Defence closed its Lancaster Park Supply Depot in Edmonton, Alberta, following an epidemic of complaints from employees of stuffiness of the nose, itching and irritation of exposed skin, and soreness of the eyes and throat. An extensive survey was carried out by PSH staff in order to identify the problem and make recommendations to DND officials. Following a survey and examination of employees by occupational health nurses, and physicians, and where necessary, dermatologists, and an environmental survey by Environmental Health Officers, it was recommended that the warehouse air be humidified, avoiding chemical irritants in the atmosphere and that adequate dust control with particular reference to fiberglass be instituted; and that vigilance concerning asbestos be maintained.
A full cleanup operation took place in May, 1989. All staff returned to work and the warehouse is now operational. Further steps were taken to promote the health and well-being of the workforce such as promotions and presentations on lifestyles and health; occupational cancer and diseases associated with asbestos.
No discussion of indoor contaminants would be complete without mentioning tobacco smoke. According to studies done by Health and Welfare for the period 1984-1989, tobacco smoke was identified as a primary culprit in the contamination of indoor air. Until roughly 1987, environmental tobacco smoke was ubiquitous in Canadian federal workplaces, and was accepted by most investigators as a normal constituent of indoor air that did not merit comment in reports. More recently, perceptions of Health and Welfare Canada investigators have changed. By 1987, some of them considered envi-
Private Members' Business
ronmental tobacco smoke to be a significant contaminant. By 1988, for a number of reasons, smoke-free federal workplaces were being seen. On January 1, 1989, a smoking ban in all federal workplaces came into effect.
From what I have said, I think it is obvious that the federal government has been implementing a national strategy for reducing the threats posed by exposure to contaminants in the air indoors. Of course, more can always be done, and this is happening as well. Right now, Health and Welfare Canada is assisting in the financing and promotion of the Fifth International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate: Indoor Air '90, which will take place July 29 to August 3, 1990, in Toronto.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking my colleague from Ottawa South for his motion and for the non-partisan and thoughtful way in which he has brought to the attention of the House a serious problem that needs to be addressed.
I was concerned to hear the parliamentary secretary refer to some suggestion that perhaps my colleague might have been critical of the NRC in his comments, that he might have been unaware of the work the NRC is doing in this field, and of the efforts being made to make their work available, known and used by building owners and managers throughout the country.
I think the comments were entirely unwarranted. No one who has sat in the House for any period of time and listened to the debates can be unaware that my colleague from Ottawa South has been instrumental in bringing to the attention of the House, the government and the public, the very serious damage being done to the National Research Council and to its contributions to science and technology in this country, and his very strong defence of the role of the National Research Council in all aspects of its work.
One would normally think that when a group of employees move to a new building, and in the case of many public service employees from temporary buildings that had existed from the time of the Second World War, that those employees would be just delighted with their new accommodations, happy to settle in, to have straight

June 5, 1990
Private Members' Business
and even floors for the first time in their working life. In fact, that is not what happened. From the minute certain buildings in the national capital region were opened and occupied, there were persistent and serious complaints from employees about the effects on their health from working in those buildings.
I do not think people moved into those buildings and suddenly starting looking for something to complain about. If anything, at least superficially, their working environment had been substantially improved and normally they would be overjoyed.
It has been a long effort to bring to the attention of employers the problems of the buildings in which they work. I do not intend to repeat the excellent information that has been put before the House by my colleague, but in 1988 the Public Service Alliance of Canada eventually out of frustration went to the point of actually producing a rather thick document for its members. Because the normal process of trying to bring their complaints to the attention of management simply were not being dealt with, they literally put out for their members a manual on how to deal with their complaints, how to identify the problem, how to document those problems and how to get action on those problems.
The manual they put out for their members outlines quite clearly that we are dealing with "sick buildings" and that the effect of working in sick buildings is sick people. The symptoms worsen during the day and as the week progresses and most disappear on the weekend. There has been some tendency on the part of management and government to think that they are dealing with a group of hypochondriacs, and to take these problems less than seriously. I do not think any responsible employer can believe that a group of employees suddenly turn into hypochondriacs overnight. These are very real problems, they are not unknown to the international scientific community and they deserve the very serious attention of government.
As well, people not working for government are subject to the same problems as we try to control our use of energy, make our buildings more airtight and produce a more controlled environment. Apparently we have also produced very sick environments. We seem to be less aware of it in North America. Already in Europe some
governments have made significant progress in determining the causes and solutions to the sick building problem.
My colleague from Ottawa South has brought forward a motion which hopefully will improve our knowledge of this problem, and make us aware that solutions must be found. I am sorry that the government members have decided that this is a bill that should not be voted on because I think it is one that is eminently in the public interest.


Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the subject of indoor air quality.
The public has always been concerned with air pollution but until a short time ago the focus was mainly on outdoor air quality and the release a chemicals into the atmosphere. It is now recognized that non-industrial indoor environments can contribute significantly to human exposure to airborne pollutants. The Department of National Health and Welfare has been involved with indoor air quality for at least a decade and remains active in this area.
In 1980, through the federal-provincial Advisory Committee on Environmental and Occupational Health, a working group on indoor air quality was established for which the Department of National Health and Welfare provided support.
In 1987, the Department of National Health and Welfare published, on behalf of the advisory committee, exposure guidelines for residential indoor air quality which presented guidelines and recommendations on 18 substances or groups of substances. To our knowledge, these were the first guidelines on indoor air quality established in any jurisdiction in the world. This year the guidelines have even been expanded to include radon and a new edition is now being published. Work in the department is continuing to identify other contaminants of concern which will be included in future editions of the indoor air quality guidelines.
Also, in 1987, the department published a report entitled Significance of Fungi in Indoor Air-A Report of a Working Group. This document, prepared by a departmental working group, reviewed the emerging issue of moulds and fungi as indoor air pollutants and potential hazards to health.
June 5, 1990

The current indoor air quality guidelines are restricted to residential buildings. The quality of air in many offices though falls within the responsibility of provincial governments to monitor and regulate. Unfortunately, many of the most conspicuous problems have to do with air quality in non-residential settings, namely offices, schools and public buildings. As a result, a new federal-provincial working group has been formed to investigate these problems.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I asked a number of questions a few months ago now, I think on December 8 in the case of one and January 23 in the case of the other, of the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs and the hon. Minister of Fisheries of the day. My questions concerned the seizure of two Canadian fishing vessels, the Fonzie and the Viscount within Canadian waters on July 5, 1989. Those fishermen were accused by the United States of fishing above what is known as the A-B line, which is the boundary demarcation between Canadian waters on the one hand and Alaskan waters on the other.
The fishermen themselves had the A-B line programmed in their loran, so they were aware that they were fishing in Canadian waters, but in order to avoid a dispute with the American Coast Guard, which had been harassing Canadian fishermen in the area at that time, they steamed south farther into Canadian waters to avoid contact with the United States Coast Guard.
Nine hours later, the U.S. Coast Guard came into Canadian waters, far into Canadian waters in what they
Adjournment Debate
called "hot pursuit", although it could hardly be called "hot pursuit" nine hours after the initial contact with these two fishermen. The Coast Guard steamed into Canadian waters and seized those Canadian fishermen inside Canadian waters.
When the boats were seized, or boarded by the U.S. Coast Guard, the Canadian fishermen contacted External Affairs through the local fisheries officer and were assured that Canada would provide legal assistance to the fishermen. If they simply surrendered to the U.S. Coast Guard, they would get legal assistance afterward.
In fact, they were seized and after their boats were taken to Ketchikan, Alaska, they were unceremoniously thrown out of the United States until their hearing, and these fishermen got absolutely no assistance from this government. In fact, they had difficulty getting the government even to answer their letters concerning the assistance promised by Coast Guard radio.
What a way to treat Canadian fishermen, legally fishing in Canadian waters, doing what Canadian fishermen are permitted to do as a consequence of their licences and their Canadian citizenship.
After the seizure of the boats, the federal government refused to help. It was only after lobbying from the Pacific Trailers Association, the fishing organization that represents the two fishermen on the west coast of British Columbia, and only after representations from members of Parliament in this House and the two questions that I asked, one on December 8 to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and one on January 23 to the Minister of Fisheries, that the government promised some assistance.
The provincial minister responsible for fisheries in British Columbia also came to their assistance. As a result of these combined lobbying efforts, the Minister of Fisheries and the Secretary of State for External Affairs decided to come down with a paltry $25,000 supposedly to help these fishermen pursue their case in Alaska.
Because of the small amount of the aid, these fishermen could not pursue the case and had to drop the case. As a result, they lost a part of their catch and a substantial amount of fishing time. One of the fishermen who lives in my constituency may be forced to give up his house because he mortgaged his house in order to finance his boat, his fishing and also to finance his legal fees. The federal government, although it had promised assistance, never delivered the required amount. As a

June 5, 1990
Adjournment Debate
result, at least one of these fishermen has ended up bankrupt.
The concern that fishermen have on the west coast is that they are wondering if this government is going to defend the right of Canadian fishermen to fish in Canadian waters.
Is this government, having promised to provide legal assistance to fishermen who get into problems with the United States Coast Guard, which is known to harass Canadian fishermen fishing from Canadian vessels inside Canadian waters in order to try to advance their territorial claim in Dixon Entrance south of the A-B line, going to protect those fishermen? To date this government has not shown the backbone or the courage to do that and now many fishermen on the west coast feel that if you want to get protected by the Canadian government when you are fishing legally in Canadian waters, it is probably better to have a United States passport.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: I want to thank the hon. member opposite for bringing this forward again in this House. I must say that in listening to his remarks, I could not disagree with him more fully.
Yes, it is true that on July 5 of last year, two Canadian vessels the Fonzie and Viscount were arrested in the Dixon Entrance, one and a quarter miles south of the A-B line in an area that is claimed by Canada and the U.S. It is alleged that they were illegally fishing earlier that day in the undisputed U.S. waters. Both captains deny that they had crossed the boundary into the disputed U.S. waters in Alaska.
At the time of the arrest, the fishermen sought advice from the government. The statements that were made by the Canadian Coast Guard radio led the fishermen to believe that they had received an undertaking from the government for legal assistance.
From the time of the incident, the government has worked continually to persuade the U.S. authorities to drop the charges because the arrests were a violation of an understanding between Canada and the U.S. on mutual restraint in the disputed area. Legal assistance was provided through diplomatic channels and the provision of advice to aid their case. The Canadian Embassy in Washington twice protested the arrests of the Canadian crews and vessels by the U.S. Coast Guard in Dixon Entrance and requested their immediate release and the dropping of charges. The arrests were also protested in Ottawa by the Department of External Affairs to the U.S. Embassy at the level of senior officials.
In addition, Canada's concerns over these incidents were raised repeatedly at bilateral enforcement meetings. During discussions with senior U.S. officials in Ottawa on August 2 and September 25, and again in Washington, D.C., on December 18, we requested that the civil charges against the vessels be dropped. In April of this year, a tentative out of court settlement was reached with the Alaskan government. The agreement should be finalized imminently.
The government provided all forms of legal assistance in this case normally provided to Canadians facing charges outside Canada. Moreover, in view of the exceptional circumstances that existed in this particular case, financial assistance in the amount of $25,000 was provided to the Pacific Trailers Association to contribute to the association's efforts to help the Canadian fishermen operate in the disputed boundary areas off the B.C. coast. These efforts should ensure that fishermen have a better understanding of the legal and enforcement issues in the disputed zone in Dixon Entrance in order to prevent such incidents as occurred last summer.
Newly developed guidelines for fishermen concerning the disputed zone in Dixon Entrance are now available from the department. Guidelines for use by the Canadian Coast Guard concerning boundary incidents will also be finalized shortly.
I want to make it abundantly clear that the Government of Canada is concerned. The A-B line constitutes the international boundary for all purposes in Dixon Entrance and the government is determined to ensure that Canadian fishing vessels have unimpeded access to all Canadian waters, including Dixon Entrance.
In this regard, a public meeting will be held on June 21 in Prince Rupert with fishermen's groups, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the External Affairs officials to discuss issues related to the boundary in Dixon Entrance.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, on December 7 of last year, I rose in this House to ask the Prime Minister, in the wake of recent reforms and economic hardships in the Soviet Union, when he was going to help President Gorbachev, give him something tangible to enable him to meet the population's expectations.
My question was responded to by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and with all due respect, I did not receive a satisfactory response. Maybe the Parliamentary Secretary today will give me a better one.
The Prime Minister had recently returned from a trip to the Soviet Union where he claimed that "in terms of bilateral co-operation the visit marked a watershed in Canada-Soviet Union relations. We signed 14 bilateral agreements-more than had been signed in the previous 20 years-on subjects ranging from international affairs to Arctic co-operation, to the environment, to military and cultural co-operation, to investment protection".
Since that day, which was November 27, 1989, as this House knows we have had various visits from Soviet officials, parliamentarians such as today's parliamentary delegation of the Supreme Soviet led by Mr. Rafik Nishanov and most recently, of course, Mr. Gorbachev himself. I have yet to hear any details as to whether there has been any progress or success with respect to these 14 agreements.
I cannot help but feel rather cynical about the intent of the government when it signs such sweeping agreements, all-encompassing agreements, especially in areas where the government's own commitment is highly questionable. Examples would be the agreements on the Arctic and on the environment.
It was brought to our attention in the time leading up to the recent summit on the environment that Canada had made a behind the scenes deal with the United States and Britain to veto a proposal offered by several other countries on the levels of reduction for CFs. Such behaviour truly undermines any effort we may want to make internationally on any given issue. At home we are
Adjournment Debate
not even able to get an already watered down green plan off the ground.
Ideas are great if they are followed by substantive goals and objectives which can be measured by results within time frames by successive re-evaluation, re-examination, revision.
We have the same problem with PCBs in our food chain in the north. Granted, there seems to be a will to do something. The Prime Minister himself on that same day offered an endorsement by President Gorbachev toward co-operation in the Arctic with respect to this very issue, but there is a long distance between endorsing and doing something about it. What guarantees did we get that this would become a priority for the Soviet Union?
We are fast losing any influence that we may have had on events around the world. What Canada says these days is met almost with a polite impatience as we self-importantly and self-righteously condemn or congratulate as we see fit.
When we get assurances from the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union that medical supplies are reaching and will continue to reach Lithuania, and they do not, we seem surprised and almost shocked, as if we had done something wrong. I am not surprised or shocked, because for the last six years, I and my colleagues on this side of the House have watched this government become merely a shadow and a voice piece for the Government of the United States.
The opportunity to show leadership has risen again. The changing face of eastern Europe and the Soviet Union has presented Canada with a rare chance to take the initiative in the inevitable changing role of NATO.
Yet what do we hear? On the one hand, we hear the Secretaiy of State for External Affairs propose a new direction for NATO by rejecting the policy of maintaining nuclear weapons in Europe. On the other hand, we hear senior External Affairs departmental officials say that Canada continues to support the strategy of maintaining a mix of nuclear and conventional weapons in Europe. I thought it was the politicians who set policy and the bureaucrats were there to administer it. It seems it is the other way around here.
For once I think that the Secretaiy of State for External Affairs is moving in the right direction. The

June 5, 1990
Adjournment Debate
time has come for NATO to take up responsibilities that better represent and better serve the present day realities.
Were NATO to become less threatening by giving up on the traditional argument of nuclear weapons as the ultimate deterrence, we may find the Soviet Union less paranoid of a united Germany and more willing to dismantle its forces, other than as we heard Mr. Gorbachev say when he left the United States that this could lead to another cold war if we insist that the united Germany be a member of NATO.
I truly feel that isolating the United States, Britain and France, the only members of NATO who are developing air-launched nuclear weapons to replace land-based nuclear missiles and artillery, and showing them up as countries with misplaced and outdated policies will serve to further the call from the international community to re-evaluate global priorities.
I urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs first to clarify his position-and I hope that his position is that of rejecting current policy-and stick to his proposal during his meeting on June 7 and June 8 of the North Atlantic Council so that we are allowed to play a central role as NATO transforms itself and so that Canada can be free to promote peacekeeping processes, peacekeeping forces, and become truly a nation that can once again make peace a priority as it did under Liberal governments under Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Pearson, St. Laurent, et cetera.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad I am in the House because I think some of the points that have just been mentioned by the hon. member do require a response. I would like to say that I recall his question in this House last December very well. In fact, as reported at page 6612 of Hansard for December 7, 1989, the hon. member stated that the Prime Minister "has just set back the termination of the cold war for another 10 years".
The overstatement and the hyperbole involved in that assessment is unfortunately typical of the strain that is carrying through some of his assessment late this afternoon in his continuing review of the many different facets of what is happening in eastern and central
Europe, the Soviet Union, and the Canadian response to it.
He wound up, with his heart covered, almost with a Liberal Party appeal to the memory of Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau and Canadian policy in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union in those days. There is not a person on this planet who does not recognize that there has been a change in the relations in those countries.
We have seen a shift from totalitarianism to democratic regimes. We have seen a shift from the Communist Party domination to multi-party states. We have seen a shift from centrally planned economies to the market economy. We have seen the cold war ending in place of pursuit of collective security and dialogue. The very kind of meeting that was held in this city last week between our Prime Minister and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and between our Secretary of State for External Affairs and Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze give clear evidence of the highest attention that is being paid to the continuing evolution of Canadian policy in that region.
The hon. member, as he is his party's critic for External Affairs, has touched many different aspects and issues in his brief remarks, too many to respond to in total right now. However, I would refer him to the excellent discussion and debate which we had in this House last Thursday on the whole question of Canadian foreign policy in eastern Europe. There was a lot that was put on the record, to which I would refer him, at that time showing how in very specific ways the government is continuing to follow up on these agreements that were assigned last November in the Soviet Union. The Prime Minister suggested that the Soviet Union have observer status at GATT. Since the Prime Minister made that suggestion, the GATT has agreed to grant the Soviet Union observer status.
I could go on as I did last Thursday when again then you had to cut me off, Mr. Speaker, but the list is so long of positive action that I commend it to the hon. member for close study.


TRANSPORT
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak again on an issue of very serious concern to the business community of the national capital region, and that is the lack of direct air service from this region to the American midwest. It is having a serious effect on business in this region and on the attempts of our local business community to diversify the
June 5, 1990

economic base, which have met with substantial success, and to become part of the growing market from here to the year 2000 for tourism and conference business.
The business community of Ottawa-Carleton, and of the entire national capital region, are not asking for any preferential treatment. They are simply asking for objective and fair treatment of the government to ensure that they are able to enjoy the kind of access to their markets and to their customers that is enjoyed by virtually every metropolitan region in the country.
The national capital region is the fourth largest urban metropolitan area in Canada, and yet it is the only major urban centre in Canada-the only one-that is discriminated against in this way. Under the bilateral air agreements between Canada and the United States it is the only urban centre specifically denied the right to direct air service to the American mid-west. This situation has existed since 1966 and has been ignored in one subsequent round of negotiations with the Americans on the bilateral air agreement.
The business community has proposed a simple solution. It has documented the need for the service. It has secured the support of American officials for a minor change. It has convinced American Airlines to provide this service on a regular daily basis between the National Capital Region and Chicago, providing access to its markets and customers in the American mid-west. It has documented the harm being done to the local business community because this service is not available.
The solution is quite simple. The service that is now available between Montreal and Chicago can be extended by declaring Ottawa a co-terminal with the Montreal airport. That would allow the airline to simply service Ottawa as well as Montreal as part of the same route.
An even simpler solution has now been proposed to the government by American Airlines and as yet has not been responded to.
Adjournment Debate
I want to address briefly some of the important impacts the lack of this service is having on the business community locally.
First, I want to quote from a letter from the Minister for International Trade, who was then Minister of Transport, to Len Potechin who is now Chairman of the Ottawa Economic Development Corporation and is a past chairman of the Ottawa Carleton Board of Trade. In that letter, the minister agreed that Ottawa should have more international flights and suggested that "the real challenge is to persuade Canadian and foreign airlines that Ottawa is a market worth serving". The minister also states, "It is hoped that business leaders like you will continue to try to attract international visitors to Ottawa, as it is only through traffic demand that international service will be developed".
The local business community did indeed do its homework. It spent substantial time and substantial amounts of money documenting exactly what the minister asked it to do in April, 1987.
I want to put a bit of an historical perspective on this. In the early 1970s, Ottawa as a community and the entire region faced the need to start diversifying its economy and becoming less dependent on the federal government for employment. It did that. It developed a strong and reasonably stable, but still fragile high technology base that has become the core of the high technology industry in Canada. It developed a conference and tourism business and invested in a conference centre specifically to attract international business which is going to be the bulk of tourism business by the year 2000.
It has become the economic hub of eastern Ontario as conjunction with its sister city, Hull, was to western Quebec, an area that is recognized as an economically disadvantaged region not only in Ontario but in Canada.
Now we find that many of our high technology companies, in order to service their clients, are having to establish offices in the United States. It is simply not productive for business people, who could normally take a two hour flight to be at their business destination, to have to leave Ottawa for Toronto in order to reach American markets. We know that Toronto is congested and delays are extensive and frequent because of the over-crowding and the safety measures that have had to be taken at Pearson International to restrict the number

June 5, 1990
Adjournment Debate
of flights landing at any given period of time. These delays have often meant missed flights. As a result, a business trip that could take place in one day often requires an overnight stay, extra expenditure, and extra wear and tear on extremely valuable and talented personnel.
The community has documented the need for this service. It did exactly what the Minister of Transport advised. It had a very extensive survey done. In fact, it used the results of that study to persuade KLM to provide direct regular service to Amsterdam, which is now happening. It used it to persuade Wardair to provide direct and frequent service to Gatwick Airport in London.
The Government of Canada is the only party it is unable to persuade that these studies are valid, the services needed, and would produce economic benefits not only for the urban area but for the entire region, and with respect to the high technology sector, for the entire country.
The community is upset that the government has said to open up trade, to go out and compete and then ties one hand behind their back. It is concerned that in a deregulated atmosphere when it is now dealing with private air companies, it is giving preferential treatment to airlines in Canada, protecting them from competition on a route that they do not want to service.
Why is the government putting the interest of a private airline and its profits ahead of the interests of an entire business community? That is the question the business community of the National Capital Region is asking.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, my remarks address the hon. member's question about why the government has not approved the proposal by the Ottawa-Carleton Economic Development Corporation for a new Ottawa-Chicago air service. As was stated in the House on February 19, by the former Minister of Transport, this government has been sensitive to the request but the proposal posed certain difficulties.
Air services between Canada and the United States are governed by bilateral air agreements, particularly the Main Air Services Agreement of 1966 which the member opposite mentioned, last revised in 1974. There is no provision in this agreement for an Ottawa-Chicago service. The inclusion of a provision for an Ottawa-Chicago service in the agreement would require that the agreement be amended to meet the requirements of the National Transportation Act. Amendments normally come about through govemment-to-govemment negotiations.
Therefore, the government cannot unilaterally approve the service in question, even if the proposal made by the Ottawa-Carleton business community contemplates service by an American carrier.
More importantly, Canada prefers a broadly-based pro-competitive approach that seeks to provide efficient air services to all our communities and opportunities for our air carrier industry. This cannot be achieved on the basis of piecemeal negotiations focusing exclusively on the needs of a single community.
When negotiations are undertaken with the United States, they will have to take an account of the national interest, including the aspirations of other Canadian cities that have made representations for improved services, and here I am thinking of Halifax, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, to name but a few.
Let me assure you that Ottawa's request, along with those of other Canadian communities, has been given serious consideration. The government, however, is not prepared to take actions at this time on behalf of a single community which could jeopardize Canada's ability to pursue a broadly-based re-negotiation of the Canada- U.S. air relationship on terms favourable to Canada and to all interested communities.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. The House therefore stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.29 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 6, 1990