1990-01-26

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has received a notice of question of privilege from the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I employed near orbital oratory condemning those who accused me of deliberately and in contempt of this House voting twice on a motion.
I have since viewed the pertinent videotapes of that vote. Clearly during that vote there was a great deal of perhaps inappropriate levity and jocularity within our caucus surrounding my intentions, although I for quite serious reasons intended to vote nay and so indicated to my colleagues and mockingly feigned rising to vote in the affirmative.
It is clear from the tape that while not aware that I did so I rose in my seat to a sufficient degree to give a reasonable person the impression that I had in fact voted aye. While that was not my deliberate intent it did lead to confusion which required subsequent clarification and resulted in sharp words being exchanged in this House.
For that I apologize, as I apologize to the House through you, Mr. Speaker, for any misunderstanding that my actions however unintended might have caused.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Right Hon. Joe Clark (for the Minister of Transport) moved: that Bill C-5, an act to amend the Railway Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of Bill C-5 before us today.
It is unfortunate that it is necessary for us to do so today because of the very fact that this House passed back in 1987 the National Transportation Act. When I look across the way I see members with whom I spent long, hard, arduous hours working together on the National Transportation Act. I think the number of that bill was C-18.
Nonetheless, Sections 158 and 174 of the National Transportation Act brought to light the fact that where short-line railways come into existence they will no longer be under the authority of the National Transportation Act but under provincial authority.
This bill is necessary because there was once such a transportation company, namely, the Central Western Railway out in Alberta which came into being in 1986. It had been overlooked that it was falling outside the jurisdiction of this act.
What we have before us here this morning, early in 1990, is a short bill of one essential clause which makes it abundantly clear that the Central Western Railway should be brought into line with the present government policy, as reflected in Sections 158 and 174 of the National Transportation Act.
This back dates that particular section in the National Transportation Act to July 1, 1986.

January 26, 1990
Government Orders
What we have here is essentially a housekeeping bill to regularize an anomalous and undesirable situation which has a bearing on the Central Western Railway that purchased a section of the CN subdivision at Stettler, Alberta.
I am sure that members opposite wish to rise and speak to this bill. They are familiar with what is taking place. I know that the people of the Central Western Railway have actually been talking to each one of us on both sides of the House concerning this piece of legislation.
I ask for the co-operation of members opposite in making sure that this bill gets speedy passage.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place and respond to the remarks of the parliamentary secretary on Bill C-5.
I respond quite openly and quite honestly in saying to the parliamentary secretary, and indeed to the minister who has just come into the House, that up until very recent days it was the perception of the Official Opposition that Bill C-5 is as the parliamentary secretary describes essentially, in parliamentary language, a housekeeping measure, one designed to bring the CWR into a position in legislative terms equal to that of all other short-line railways in the country.
I have to point out to my colleague opposite, and I do so in good faith, that in very recent days we on this side of the House have heard from the representatives of workers at the CWR. They have expressed some concerns about this bill, concerns that heretofore we were not familiar with. In fact I hold in my hand copies of some correspondence that was written to the Minister of Transport on May 30 by the United Transportation Union.
This letter points out some concerns about Bill C-5 and the impact of its passage on the position of that union which is now for various and sundry reasons before the courts in terms of determining the proper jurisdiction of the railway and of the union with respect to CWR.
It is for that reason that we in the Official Opposition, because we are interested in ensuring that every voice that should be heard is heard, cannot give approval today to the passage of Bill C-5 at all stages.
What we would petition the government opposite to do, as well as colleagues in other parties, is to support the motion to send this bill to a legislative committee so that all of us in this House-in particular all those on the transport committee, my colleague for Kenora-Rainy River, our labour critic, and others-can participate in an examination of the bill and give those most directly affected by the bill, in this case the employees, an opportunity to be heard.
I say to my colleagues opposite that having provided that opportunity and having given everybody a chance to be heard on this bill then certainly we will co-operate to see its passage if there are not significant problems. On the other hand, if there are problems that we ought to be aware of I hope this House and the transport committee in their wisdom will deal with those problems and that the minister will respond in an appropriate way.


Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today and speak on Bill C-5, an act to amend the Railway Act.
This legislation that we are dealing with has far more reaching consequences than what my hon. colleague on the government side would lead us to believe. This bill deals not only with providing a private company, the Central Western Railway Corporation, with a clean legislative bill of health but, more important, with the future of all railway workers who would find themselves in a situation where private interests would purchase short-line railways from transportation companies such as the Canadian National.
I dare not treat this matter lightly, no matter what the arguments from the other side may be, for many reasons. First, the government's track record when it comes to railways leaves a lot to be desired. We have witnessed that just lately with the types of cuts that have taken place to the VIA Rail lines and the kind of service that is left.
Some areas are being left out in the cold with secondary type service and with the likes of a bud car, particularly in my riding which is supposed to run on a three days in and three days out per week basis. In December we saw that it ran six times in the whole month. It kind of makes one wonder just exactly what this government's intention really is vis-a-vis railroads.
January 26, 1990

It was only a few weeks ago that we witnessed the death of one of Canada's great traditions. I am speaking about the end of The Canadian. We have heard reports that a private group wanted to take over this route but at a price that few, if any, Canadians would be able to afford, especially if you tag on the GST-and God knows at what per cent it will be by then-to the price of the ticket.
I wonder if my colleague on the other side who spoke on this matter will be able to keep a straight face when he tells the workers at CN that deregulation, privatization and a deeper concern for the bottom line are to their benefit. I bet he would not be able to say that to all the laid off workers from VIA Rail.
CN employees are probably feeling pretty nervous right now wondering if they are going to be next. I wonder about a lot of workers along the rail lines who would be feeling nervous when we consider all the changes that are taking place these days to UI as a result of the free trade agreement and the changes to our tax structure when we talk about the GST. There are many things going on in this country that introduce a sense of nervousness for just about all of us.
When the bill was introduced in April of last year the United Transportation Union sent a letter to Minister of Transport expressing its concerns. It points out in this letter some background information that I would like to quote for the record:
The United Transportation Union represents train and yard service personnel on the Canadian National Railway (CNR). The CNR sold a portion of its line (approximately 106 miles in south central Alberta) to the CWRC, a provincially incorporated company in November of 1986. The United Transportation Union and other unions, brought certain applications against the CNR and the CWRC to the Canada Labour Relations Board to preserve our bargaining rights and the jobs of our members. A critical issue was whether labour relations on the CWRC fell under federal or provincial control.
The Canada Labour Relations Board, in a decision dated February 27, 1987, held that the CWRC was a federal work, undertaking or business. The CWRC appealed that decision to the Federal Court of Appeal. The appeal was dismissed on January 28, 1988. The CWRC has now appealed these decisions to the Su-
Govemment Orders
preme Court of Canada. I must point out that that decision has not been handed down as yet. It is pending.
I would like to quote something from the bill under the heading "Continuation of Existing Corporations":
3. The company incorporated under the name of Canadian National Railway Company by an act to incorporate Canadian National Railway Company and respecting Canadian National Railways, chapter 13 of the Statutes of Canada, 1919, the company formed by the amalgamation of Canadian National Railway Company and The Grand Hunk Railway Company of Canada, and the Canadian National Railway Company referred to in The Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act, 1933, chapter 33 of the Statutes of Canada, 1932-33, are hereby declared to be and to have been one and the same company, and the said company is hereby continued under the name of Canadian National Railway Company.
The purpose of reading this part of the bill is to indicate that in 1919 the government of the day saw fit to incorporate and nationalize our railroads. Today, we see a government which is somewhat insensitive to our national system. It seems to be quite content with the beginning of dismantling not only our passenger rail service but now it is headed toward dismantling our freight rail system.
Quite frankly, I find that appalling. I reiterate what I said earlier. With all the changes that are taking place in our country we see that now the government is supporting a bill that in essence allows for the dismantling of our national institution, the railroad. The very fibre that joined this country is now being dismantled. That is only one of the reasons I am opposing this bill.
I quote further from the letter to which I referred from the labour group which states:
We oppose any legislation to benefit one company, particularly where the matter is pending before the court.
I happen to share that opinion.
I would like now to introduce a bit of history to these proceedings and to read some remarks made in December 1986 by the then Minister of Transport, the hon. member for St. John's West, on the motion for second reading of Bill C-18, an act respecting national transportation:
As Minister of Transport, my responsibility, in addition to providing an efficient transportation system, is to provide a safe one. Our first priority will always be safety.
When we speak of safety and we talk about separating branch lines, abandoned lines if you will, from the main line and not allowing them to be part of the federal unit for the purposes of the protection of the workers, we are just tearing the whole system apart. It just seems to me

January 26, 1990
Government Orders
that there is safety in groups. When you break away from the main body, your bargaining powers are limited and safety is sometimes set aside for the sake of operating the business. We cannot allow that to happen.
For a moment I would like to go back to the future-no pun intended, and I am not referring to the movie either-and remind hon. members on the other side that if Bill C-5 is passed, it would in effect allow the Canadian Western Railway Company to disengage itself from the provisions included in Bill C-105, an act that was passed in May 1988 to ensure the safe operation of railways and to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof. That is exactly what I was referring to a few moments ago.
Bill C-105 ensures that the Governor in Council may make regulations respecting engineering standards governing the construction or alteration of railway works and such engineering standards may embrace both physical specifications and performance standards.
It also ensures many other safety measures and states in a section devoted to acts applicable to Canadian government railways that:
Notwithstanding anything in the government Railway Act or any other act of Parliament, the provisions of the National Transportation Act, 1987, of the Railway Act, other than sections 156 to 184, and of the Railway Safety Act, in so far as those provisions relate to the construction, maintenance and operation of a railway, apply in respect of any Canadian government railway that would but for the passing of this Act, be subject to the government Railway Act, but only for the period during which the management and operation of that railway is entrusted to the national company.
In other words, once the company is declared outside of federal jurisdiction it does not have to conform to the act. Is the current Minister of Transport in the mood to allow different legislation to apply on a provincial level to various railroads, and in the matter of safety, no less? This concerns safety not only for the workers on these freight trains but for those who have to travel over railway crossings.
It seems to me that this government is intent on washing its hands of a whole lot of issues. The government would rather leave workers twisting in the wind when it comes to bearing the brunt of regressive taxes such as the GST. It would sacrifice Canadian workers on the altar of the mighty American dollar when it comes to
free trade. Just after it put the lives of train workers on the line with cuts to VIA, the government wants to continue this trend for freight trains and jeopardize the livelihoods of these workers as well by washing its hands of the whole business.
I share the concerns of the United Transportation Union when it states:
We strongly oppose the principle that federal regulation of railways, including matters of safety as well as labour relations, could be avoided by the transferring of a part or parts of a national railway to a provincially incorporated company. We consider this prospect to have serious consequences for the future of railways in Canada. We are completely at a loss to understand why Parliament should be promoting this prospect.
Frankly, so am I. I have yet to hear any arguments from the other side as to the rationale behind this. Maybe I have an idea about what this bill is all about. It is that the federal government would rather wash its hands of the whole thing. It intends to get rid of all the trains and leave it to private industry altogether.
I would just like to touch on the financial aspect of these abandoned lines for a moment. When we consider the amount of money in Canadian tax dollars that the government has spent over the years to build our national rail lines, we see that the amounts are phenomenal.
We are now in a position where our freight trains are giving us a return on that investment, yet we see this government abandoning lines and allowing them to be picked up for next to nothing with interest-free government loans. It is allowing them to go to private enterprise which is now showing a profit three times that of the government's.
When I see this I kind of wonder just what kind of management there is by the government when it comes to railroads. If a private company can do it, why cannot the national railways do it? Why are we abandoning these lines when they are in fact profitable, when they could and do return a profit, and when that profit could be returned to Canadian people, people who have invested in this company?
I just wonder what the government's response would be to such a question, a question as to why it is so willing to abandon these lines when they are profitable. My colleague from the other side has argued that Bill C-5
January 26, 1990

will only put the CWR on an equal footing with any future short-line railway.
How can I approve of such legislation when I see this erosion of another train company and the consequences that this could have on its workers? My colleague will also argue that a parliamentary committee approved the concept that short-line railways will be under provincial jurisdiction when it approved the National Transportation Act in 1987. I would like to remind this House that the NDP did not approve of this Act and that we certainly do not approve of it today. In fact, this is one argument that convinces me to be of a different opinion than that of my colleague on the other side.
In conclusion, I strongly support that this bill be recommended to the legislative committee so that we can hear from the various people concerned. I am sure that the owner of the CWRC would like to make a presentation to that committee, and I am absolutely sure the unions involved would like to make a representation to that committee. Perhaps we could even hear from the workers who are being affected by this legislation.
It seems to me that this bill is not as clear-cut or as simple and straightforward as it would appear. When you look at changing a word or a paragraph of legislation, you have to consider all the aspects and ramifications. Once we get into committee we will see that it is not all that clear-cut. I support the motion that this bill be forwarded to the legislative committee.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, as the labour representative for the Liberal Party of Canada, I too would like to voice my opinion in this matter as it relates to Bill C-5. Bill C-5 as it stands does not seem to people on this side of the House to have as large an effect as might be imagined. One of the problems with it that we on the labour side would like to take a look at, the ramifications it would have to the workers themselves. That is the most important part of this bill which needs to be looked at in committee.
As the labour representative for the Liberal Party, I think it would be to our benefit to send this legislation to committee and to look at the effects on the workers. We do not believe as a party that Bill C-5 truly will affect the aspects of safety as it relates to the rail line itself, but it is imperative that we look at the effects on the workers.
Government Orders
I think it would be imperative for us as members here today to be prepared to let it go to committee, to have people on all sides of the issue come forward with their presentations so we can make a decision based on all the facts and not only based on the fact that the government feels it is such a small bill it has no consequence to Canada.
Therefore, I recommend that we send this bill to a legislative committee.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, ever since this bill was first presented to the House, I believe last April, I have had mixed feelings about it. My definition of "mixed feelings" is watching a Tory and a Liberal going over a cliff in my new car.
It is a short bill, one long paragraph, but it cannot be maintained that it is a very simple, straightforward bill because its ramifications are an extension of the ramifications that we in this party warned about when we dealt with the National Transportation Act. More particularly, it is a ramification of what happened over the year and a half of debate and struggle we had about the statutory grain rates, the Crow rates. I warned then that doing away with the statutory grain rates would lead to more rail line abandonments, more lost jobs and higher costs for grain producers to get their grain delivered.
The previous government and this government have consistently followed a policy that has led to the continuous downgrading of our national railway system. It has led to the breaking up into little pieces here and there all over the country of our national rail system. It has led to the handicapping of our railways to function at more than a break-even position. For example, the railroads are required to pay a tax on diesel fuel.
The railroads have to build, maintain and operate their own right-of-way. They are the only transportation mode that has to do that. For all other modes the rights-of-way, the airways and whatnot are made available through the public purse. Of course, when they have to pay a diesel fuel tax, tens of millions a year, it is nothing more than a subsidy to the highway users. That is an example of the handicapping of our national railway system.

January 26, 1990
Government Orders
I do not like saying "I told you so", Mr. Speaker, but I am going to anyway. When the statutory grain rates were being debated and being repealed, we were told that the railroads were losing so much money under the statutory grain rates they could not function, they would have to abandon railway lines and they would need assistance to fix up other railway lines in order to move our grain.
We were assured by the ministers of transport of those days, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, that if we were to do this, and the railroad said if we were to do away with the statutory grain rates and the railways were fully compensated for their costs of moving grain, all would be heaven. The railroads would be making money hauling grain, there would be no more branch line abandonments, or darned few, railway lines would be fixed up and the farmer's grains would be moved more efficiently. I predicted then and I have been proven right since that the opposite has been the case.
Even with the railroads getting full compensation for their costs of moving grain, they continued to make application to abandon thousands more miles of railway lines. Over the last year or two it has not just been in western Canada, but also Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces. We now have two provinces with no railway, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island.
It would seem that the only thing the railways want to do is operate a main line. That is all they want. They would get rid of everything else if they could get away with it. Well Sir, something they conveniently forget to tell people is that all of those tens of thousands of miles of branch lines and secondary main lines are feeders to the main line, delivering traffic to the main line so that the main line can be operated at a profit. There is nothing new about feeder lines or branch lines losing money, nothing new about that at all; it goes back to the first days of the railroad. However, they were built for several reasons. One was to provide that feeding of traffic to the main lines to be carried on to its destination, and then there was the matter of national policy.
Unless we get a fundamental change in the current national policy on transportation, this is going to continue and it is going to happen at a greater rate than ever before. It is immaterial whether transportation is privately owned or publicly owned, unless and until it is treated as a publicly utility and operated in that manner, and not just from the bottom-line syndrome, there will continue to be a denigration of our transportation system, particularly the railway lines, and the ones who are going to pay for it are the taxpayers and the ones who are going to suffer for it are the consumers of transportation.
In spite of all those assurances about how glorious it would be when the railroads were collecting full compensation for their costs of moving grain, it has got steadily worse. All that means to me is they are just keeping the money.
In the matter of the Central Western Railway, I can sympathize with what can happen if a new short-line railway were to start up tomorrow. If they are wholly within the boundaries of a province, they will have the benefit of the new National Transportation Act and will not be considered under federal jurisdiction, established before the new National Transportation Act, is not subject to the provisions of the new National Transportation Act. Hence this bill.
The Canada Labour Relations Board has ruled that it is a federal railway and subject to federal law and regulations. The Federal Court of Appeal ruled two to one that it is a federal works and subject to federal law and federal regulations. Now it is before the Supreme Court. I am of the view that this matter should not be brought to Parliament until the Supreme Court has ruled. Then the government can decided what it needs to do, if anything. If the Supreme Court rules that the Central Western Railway is federal only because of the Section 92 declaration, then the combined effect of Section 174 of the National Transportation Act and Bill C-5, if passed, would be to place all short-line railways, locally and wholly within one province, under provincial rather than federal jurisdiction.
On the other hand, if the Supreme Court held that the CWRC, the Central Western Railway Company, was under federal jurisdiction for the reasons referred to by Mr. Justice Marceau of the Federal Court of Appeal, then similarly situated short-line railways would be under federal jurisdiction, fill
You will note that Section 174 of the National Transportation Act only negates the effect of Section 92
January 26, 1990

declarations. It does not exclude railways that would otherwise be within legislative authority of Parliament.
Of course, it is open to the Supreme Court to conclude that CWRC is not under federal jurisdiction at all, in which case similarly situated short-line railways would fall into the same category and be under provincial rather than federal control for labour relations purposes. It seems to me a bit unseemly to be attempting to act in this matter until the Supreme Court has ruled. I understand they will be ruling later this year.
While all the rest of the industrialized world and even some developing countries are making massive investments into modernizing and re-equipping their railway systems, Canada is going in the other direction. One has to only look at the recent economic, social and transportation tragedy in the case of cutting VIA Rail's operations in half. Even the Americans to the south of us have recognized the need for an upgraded, modernized and efficient national rail passenger system. They have ordered new rolling stock, new locomotives. They just recently placed more orders for new rolling stock, some of it went to Bombardier who manufacture railway passenger cars. It seems strange that we can make railway cars for the United States and other countries- they have also had contracts with African countries and West European countries-but we are not making them for ourselves, which tells you something else about the present policy of this government.
Something like a national rail passenger system, something like a national system of branch lines can be made to operate at full cost recovery or better. It can be made to succeed. From looking at some numbers, it is my opinion that the Western Railway is doing a better job of moving grain than the CNR ever did. Aside from any legitimate worries that the railways unions have, the fact is that they are doing a better job and they are making it go. Now they have some real problems. They are going to have spend millions of dollars yet rehabilitating that line. They still have a fair mortgage to pay off to CNR. It will take another year or two before they have that mortgage paid off and then they are going to have to go into many millions of dollars to rehabilitate the line, including some heavier steel rails, so they are not out of the woods.
Government Orders
With what they have had to operate with, they have done a credible job of moving grain. That was the reason for its coming into existence since the government was prepared to let CNR abandon it. The government should have been kicking the CNR around and making them do it efficiently. We are in a real conundrum.
As I said at the outset, we have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I do not want to see the Central Western Railway be disadvantaged when other shortline railways will inevitably start up because the government is frantically trying to find buyers and so are the railroads, so they can abandon lines. That is the problem on the one hand. On the other hand, the whole matter of jurisdiction, whether federal or provincial, is something that has to be decided by the Supreme Court.
Surely it makes sense to continue what has been our entire history, railroads under federal jurisdiction, and for the works, the benefit, general welfare and good order of the nation as a whole no matter where they are located. That should be put back in place instead of this ad hoc operating from day to day, month to month, abandonment here, cancel the rehabilitation program. It was cancelled a year before it was supposed to run out. There is still about 1,000 or 1,200 miles of track to be rehabilitated. That was cancelled. All that does is make it all the easier for CN or CP to abandon them because they become in such disrepair that you cannot operate on them any more. Obviously, if they are not going to be repaired, they will be abandoned.
I think it is important that this legislation receives a thorough examination before the committee and that we call witnesses, any and all who wish to appear. My colleague mentioned some that should appear, the Central Western, the Railway Brotherhood. I think CN should be called. The National Transportation Agency should be called. Obviously, the minister should be called, although getting anything out of him is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.
I cannot support legislation that does not need to be dealt with until after the Supreme Court rules. I do not think it is necessary. I do not believe there will be any other short-line railway starting up this year. I have not heard of any developments anywhere in the country of that happening. There will be some people trying to start up a luxury, elite tourist passenger train from Toronto to Vancouver. If you have anywhere from $1,500 to $3,000 you will be able to get on that four times a month during

January 26, 1990
Government Orders
the summer, which is called some kind of a replacement of the Canadian. It is a replacement for the rich but it is no replacement for Canadians. You will see more of that sort of nonsense. If there is anybody damn fool enough to pay $4,000 to ride a train to eat some caviar and drink some champagne, well, if they can afford it, if somebody can con them out of their money, I suppose that is okay. You won't see any ordinary Canadians riding it.
I hope the government will take another look at this. I hope it will decide that the committee should go into this quite extensively, agree to hear witnesses and take all the time necessary and, more important, not do any finalizing on it until after the Supreme Court of Canada has made its decision.


Mr. Hovdebo:: Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak on this bill, but at the moment I would like to ask a question.
The member for Regina-Lumsden is a well-versed member of the House with a lot of experience in transportation and transportation policy. I would like to ask two questions really but one initially.
This particular railway is being established to move grain on a particular branch line which was up for abandonment. Would the member tell me where the money to operate that particular railway is coming from under the present structure of payment for the movement of grain under the Western Grain Transportation Act?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: When the Central Western Railway was being organized, their banker, upon looking at an obscure clause in the Railway Act, said that any revenue the company gets should go first to operating expenses and then to debt reduction. So the banker backed out.
Under the Western Grain Transportation Act, under which the government paid 80 per cent at that time of the cost of transporting grain, the partners of the Central Western Railway got a prepayment on those costs of moving grain, a grant against tonnage to be subsequently hauled. After negotiating with Canadian National, they got CN to agree to carry better than half of the $2.7
million price-tag they owed. That meant the Central Western partners owned a railway.
I spoke about a mortgage. I believe that is the one they are now paying back to Canadian National, something in the order of $1.5 million. The money was obtained under the Western Grain Transportation Act initially as a prepayment. I suspect that they are now getting money in the normal way. I am not certain, but I believe they could be getting money under the Western Grain Transportation Act, getting paid in the normal way as and when grain is hauled and delivered, and then making payments on their mortgage to Canadian National.
One other way in which they make some revenue is a steam locomotive and three or four heritage-type passenger cars which they run up and down that line in the summer. They haul people who want to ride a steam train. I do not know why the CNR did not think of that. That is about the only two ways in which they derive revenue.
I may say also that they have anywhere from 18 to 25 employees, depending on the time of year. Most, if not all of them, are shareholders in the company and most, if not all of them, used to work for a railway somewhere else in Canada or the United States such as CN or CR I believe one or two are Americans. They are people who took early retirement, or got laid off indefinitely. They could see the handwriting on the wall, so they quit. As far as I am aware, they are all experienced railroaders, which is probably the main reason for whatever success CWR has had.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is approximately one minute left for both the question and the answer.


Ms. Mitchell:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the member who is an expert on rail transportation. If there is not time, perhaps we can give notice and debate it a little later.
What things does the hon. member think are needed in order to upgrade, improve, modernize and make more efficient the connections between the transportation of grain into ports such as Vancouver to make us competitive with the American transportation system where, of course, they have double-decker trains and many more efficient methods of transport? As a result, this is taking business not only from rail transport in Canada but also from our Canadian ports.
January 26, 1990


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will allow the Hon. Member for Regina-Lumsden to answer after question period if we are still on this bill.
It being eleven o'clock the House will now proceed to statements by members.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the voters of Alberta, I take exception to the recent Senate election in that province. In general, it just cannot be correct that each province determine the method of selection of Senators. One province, such as Alberta, may have all the voters vote for all the candidates, another province may choose to have Senators elected by ridings or by counties or by population distribution. In any case we would have chaos across Canada.
In the particular case of Alberta, the method used to elect a Senator could result in Senators coming from only one town or city. Under this system in Nova Scotia most or all of Senators would end up coming from Halifax. That system is hardly effective representation for Alberta, Nova Scotia or any province.
Such an important issue as Senate reform must result in a uniform system by agreement with all governments involved and under the rules of our Constitution. Senate selection cannot be haphazard and inconsistent across Canada.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, yesterday's statement by the member for South Shore on Bill C-21 cannot go unchallenged. The minimum number of weeks to qualify for UI went from 10 to 14 weeks in Guysborough, not because of the Senate but because on December 20 the government he supports voted down legislation in this House which would have maintained the minimum entrance requirements at 10 to 14 weeks for another year.
The member should know that if Bill C-21 is passed, unemployed workers in his riding will require not 14 weeks to qualify for UI benefits but 15 weeks if they live in Lunenburg County and 18 weeks if they live in Queens or Shelburne Counties. Furthermore, UI benefits to his fishermen will be made more vulnerable as they will be no longer financed out of general revenues.
Rather than accusing the Senators of hypocrisy, the member would better serve his constituents by calling on his Minister of Employment and Immigration to withdraw this bill and return the minimum weeks to qualify for UI to 10 to 14 weeks as we on this side of the House have been urging her to do.

Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, this past year has not been an easy one for many Chinese Canadians. The massacre in Tiananmen Square shocked the world. Loyalties to the homeland were mixed with concerns of new repressions. Uncertainties increased in Hong Kong and many people made plans to emigrate to Canada.
In British Columbia tensions increased as new immigrants were unfairly blamed for rising house prices. The Canadian Government sold entry tickets to Canada to rich investors, while poorer relatives were refused admission. Racism surfaced; most recently a racist pin circulating in Alberta which denigrates visible minorities and multiculturalism.
Chinese Canadians are contributing in all walks of Canadian life, in business as workers, in professions as judges and as a Lieutenant-Governor. Immigration has reunited families who are helping each other to become established. Their children are among our best students. Our economy and communities are strengthened and our culture enriched as a result. I know all parliamentarians join me saying "Gung hai, fay choy, happy Chinese new year".


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Mr. Speaker, as we approach the critical deadline for adoption of the Meech Lake Accord, I wish to clearly reiterate, as I have previously expressed on several occasions, my personal strong support for this constitutional amendment. For me the overwhelming imperative

January 26, 1990
is my confidence in the future destiny of Canada and in the role which we have to play in the larger world.
I do sincerely believe that Canadians must and will rise to this highest goal of strengthening the very unity of our nation in the months which lie ahead. Only in such national strength and unity can we help to lead the countries of the world in confronting the truly global challenges of our time, both economic and environmental.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of this House the fact that the price of propane fuel has sky-rocketed by 50 per cent over the last month. Since the beginning of December bulk propane has increased from approximately 19 cents a litre to 30 cents a litre throughout all of eastern Ontario. One feed mill in my constituency has estimated that the cost of operating its boilers would increase by $20,000 this year if that price remains the way it is. An owner of a grocery store and bakery in my riding which utilizes propane has also stated that his costs would increase by over $8,000 this winter alone.
I call upon the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to immediately contact the officials of the large oil producing companies and tell them that the price increase in propane is totally unjustifiable. In a rural area such as the one that I represent, propane is a fuel of necessity. We need it in order to run many of the businesses in my riding. I hope that the government notices this issue and reacts immediately.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, everyone admits that the greenhouse effect responsible for global warming is a major environmental challenge.
On January 16, 1990, the Home Division of Noranda Minerals in Rouyn-Noranda reported on the concrete action taken in recent years to fight the greenhouse effect.
In 1980, over 15 million Imperial gallons of heavy oil were burned, but in 1989, they only used 166,000, a reduction of 98.9 per cent. The tonnage of coal used went from 32,350 in 1980 to 10,539 in 1989, a decrease of 67.4 per cent.
Noranda Minerals attributes these successes to the building of two air separation plants in the last few years at a cost of some $16 million. By thus reducing its use of heavy oil and coal very significantly, the Home Division of Noranda is reducing its C02 emissions by 4.2 billion cubic feet a year compared to 1980. To give some idea of the size of such a reduction, it is equivalent to the annual emissions of 23,000 single-family homes heated with natural gas.
Mr. Speaker, clearly the federal government's environmental leadership is bearing fmit. I would also like to ask all my colleagues-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, the American Lung Association recently released a study showing that air pollution from automobiles causes between 50,000 and 120,000 deaths in the United States each year. It is costing the health system over $40 billion annually. These deaths are a result of low emission standards and the continued reliance on so-called dirty fossil fuels.
The report also states that automobile fumes are responsible for devastating large tracts of valuable agricultural and forest land. These startling conclusions must be of equal concern to Canadians. They send a clear warning that this government should begin to take seriously the need to encourage and promote the use of alternative fuels.
January 26, 1990

Groups such as the Canadian Renewable Fuel Association have pointed out that vehicle conversion to other forms of fuel, such as natural gas, propane and ethanol are clean and financially viable alternatives to gasolines.
The U.S. Congress is currently debating amendments to the Clean Air Act which addresses the issue of emission levels. This act will implement sweeping environmental standards far exceeding anything that we have in Canada. This government must stop posturing on environmental issues and start to encourage the use of cleaner fuels in the millions of vehicles on the road in Canada.


INFANT MORTALITY
Mr. Ricardo Lopez (Chateauguay):: While watching television yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I heard the distressing news that Canada ranked first among all developed countries as far as the rate of infant mortality is concerned. This is disturbing news indeed when we realize that our young people are the real wealth of this country. I wonder what the Government is prepared to do to remedy this afflicting situation.
Mr. Speaker, the sad truth is that infant mortality is the highest among the poorest families. I have already mentioned in the House the need for the government to grant financial support to the poorer families, including a salary to homemakers. Mr. Speaker, our government should keep this in mind as it is preparing its forthcoming budget.
I urge again the government to seriously consider the possibility of granting a salary to homemakers, especially in the case of the poorest families.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in the Williams Lake area of B.C. the military's Nordic Warrior exercises ended this week. These exercises involved some 1,600 troops, 350 army vehicles and low flying military jets and helicopters.
Upon the departure of the troops their garbage and waste was deposited in the Williams Lake city dump. The waste included such items as boxes of T-bone steaks, prime smoked beef and canned foods, all in extremely large quantities; batteries and equipment still in its plastic wrappers. There were truckloads, according to the MLA for the area, Mr. Zimhelt.
The Minister of National Defence should launch an immediate inquiry into this gross waste of food and equipment; apologize to the people of Williams Lake in British Columbia, and the people of Canada.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: On
April 11, 1989, Mr. Speaker, the President of Treasury Board promised the House that the government would table before the end of 1989 the regulations concerning the Official Languages Act. Nineteen months have elapsed since Bill C-72, an Act respecting the status and use of official languages in Canada, was adopted on July 7, 1988, and over nine months have elapsed since the President of Treasury Board promised the House to table the said regulations.
Including its public consultations and the study by the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, the government will have needed three years before taking action.
I am flabbergasted by this Tory Government's irresponsibility in this area. Having failed to deliver, the President should at least try to save face by tabling immediately and in its entirety the draft regulations with respect to the Official Languages Act, so that Canadians may know what direction where the government stands as far as its official languages policy is concerned.


THE ECONOMY
Mr.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, one of the most important issues in our great nation today is the state of the Canadian economy. Despite difficult international economic circumstances, Canada has placed second only to Japan in terms of economic growth among industrialized nations of the world.

January 26, 1990
In the past five years Canada's over-all unemployment rate has dropped from 12 per cent to about 7.4 per cent. This is solid evidence that real progress is being made toward the goal of strengthening our economy.
In spite of recent successes, however, more work has to be done. Canadians from sea to sea have pointed to the federal deficit as a major economic concern. The upcoming federal budget must reflect Canada's concern for the deficit. Responsible and reasonable expenditure restraint must continue. Taxation systems must be reasonable and fair. We must all work toward deficit reduction to ensure that the next generation of Canadians can work and live in a better Canada with a stronger economy.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, events of this week have proven once and for all something I have long suspected. The New Democrats are the only party opposing the GST. We are the only party that Canadians can depend upon to stand up and fight for what Canadians really want.
Eighty per cent of Canadians do not want a goods and services tax. At the same time, the Conservative government seems determined to ram this goods and services tax down the throats of Canadians and we learned this week that the Liberal Party is not going to do very much to stop it.
Why is this? Now we know. Mr. Chretien, one of the leadership hopefuls, has said on national television this week he really does not know what he would do about the GST. What are the 30 Liberal MPs who support Chretien supposed to say? The Liberals are not helping us in our campaign to stop the GST because the Liberals do not know what they believe, and they do not know what they will do if they were ever elected.
Let me say again that 80 per cent of Canadians do not want the GST. The Conservatives are not going to listen to them. The Liberals do not know who to listen to. We in the New Democratic Party are going to do everything in this House of Commons that we can legitimately do to fight the GST. We are going to do it in the regions, the communities and the constituencies of Canada and we welcome all the help we can get.


THE MINISTRY
Mr. Gilbert Chartrand (Verdun-Saint-Paul):: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely shocked and disappointed by the resignation of the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport because for once we had a minister with a fresh outlook and a challenging year 2000 action plan for Canadian athletes and all Canadians actively engaged in sports activities. I think it is quite discouraging.
But why was he so badly advised? I for one believe the blame rests primarily with the unelected leaders of amateur sports who gave very misleading advice to the minister because this time around they were concerned they would lose control over amateur sports in Canada. They had to deal with a minister who was not afraid to voice his opinion, to work closely with the Canadian people and, on behalf of amateur sports and especially the athletes, to express challenging ideas likely to propel Canada on the international scene.
I would suggest that criticism be aimed, not at the minister for his technical mistake, but indeed at his advisers, those people who preside over amateur sports in Canada. We serve them notice that for once the government is monitoring their performance and will assume full responsibility for amateur sports with a view to providing proper guidance to our athletes and help them to achieve and to carry Canada's colours on the international scene.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian dairy farmers take pride in maintaining the safest products in the world and yet the United States is using sanitary regulations to restrict the entry of Canadian yogurt into the United States.
The Minister of Agriculture told dairy producers in Moncton that Canada was going to start actions against the United States, after the dairy farmers did their homework.
It is now time for the minister and his government to begin their homework by taking inventory of these American non-tariff barriers that are harassing Cana-
January 26, 1990

dian farmers so we can launch a GATT panel hearing to protest these American actions.
Canadian farmers are fed up with the United States clawing to get into our markets while restricting our entry into the United States.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Tiirner (Leader of the Opposition):: In the absence of the Prime Minister, who is probably holding some hands with the Minister for International Trade and the Minister of Communications, although we see the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his seat this Friday morning, I will put my question to the Minister of Finance.
There is yet more evidence this morning that the Canadian economy is entering a period of slower growth. The deputy chief economist for the Royal Bank of Canada adds his voice to others who predict a recession. You do not have to be an economist to know that this is not the time for any government to be bringing in a new, massive, regressive, hidden sales tax in the form of the GST.
The new sales tax will add to consumer costs, fuel inflationary pressures and choke off investment. Why does the Minister of Finance still insist that now is the time to slam the economy and all Canadians with this massive, hidden, regressive sales tax?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, first let me say that the slowing in the growth of the economy is something we have been expecting. I spoke about it in my last budget-


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: It was caused by your budget. You admitted it.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: As colleagues will recall, I said it was important that we see some slowing in the growth of the economy because we needed some relief from the inflationary pressures that have been causing the high interest rates that we have been living with now for over a year.
Oral Questions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: You are causing the high interest rates.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The House leader for the opposition says that we are causing the high interest rates. The high interest rates are there because we have a high level of inflation and have had for some time. We are learning of the damage that was done in the late 1970s and the early 1980s, because the government at that time ignored the inflation problems and let it get out of control. That led to the high interest rates, high inflation, and high unemployment that were so serious in 1982 with the recession that we had. This is precisely what we are trying to avoid.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition says again that this is a hidden tax. It is not a hidden tax. If the hon. member looks at the tax we have today, it is absolutely hidden. There is no way that people can tell what the existing federal sales tax is, but if people look at what will happen when the GST comes into place, they will see it is a very visible tax. There are very few people in this country who are not aware of the GST.


John Napier Turner: From the way the minister is talking this morning, he is going to be his own self-fulfilling prophecy in terms of the future of the economy.
The Prime Minister is not here, but I wonder whether the Minister of Finance could give him a little arithmetic lesson. The Prime Minister is telling the country that because the 13.5 per cent manufacturers' sales tax has been lowered to a 7 per cent retail goods and services tax, this is less of a tax.
Would the Minister of Finance be good enough over the weekend to take the Prime Minister aside and tell him that this new tax will be $7 billion more? Will he take him through the calculations which show that a tax on a retail price takes far more out of a consumer's pocket than even a higher tax way down the line at the manufacturer's sales level. Perhaps he will be good enough to illustrate that to the Prime Minister and get him off that particular argument.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Do you have a question?


John Napier Turner: On top of that the minister was giving us a lecture this morning, a kind of diluted Economics 100-1/2.

January 26, 1990
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Is this a farewell speech or a question? Do you have a question, John?


John Napier Turner: The Secretary of State for External Affairs asks me whether this is my farewell speech. I will yield the floor right now to hear his farewell speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: He wanted unanimous consent yesterday so that we would adjourn the business of the House to hear his statement on Cambodia. We were agreeable, but I am sure I could persuade even the NDP to adjourn the House this morning and listen to the farewell speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The Minister of Finance quietly raised the old manufacturers' sales tax from 9 per cent to 10 per cent to 11 per cent to 12 per cent to 13.5 per cent. Yet he is trying to tell the country that 7 per cent is going to be a real break. Why does the minister not bite the bullet, come clean with the Canadian people and tell them what is in store for them after he insists on imposing this tax?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition has demonstrated-


Charles Joseph Clark: The temporaiy Leader.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -the temporary Leader of the Opposition, thank you-has demonstrated quite clearly why there is less than perfect understanding on the part of Canadians of the impact of the GST.
He has just talked about a $7 billion additional impact of this tax. I do not know where he got that figure from.


John Napier Turner: Your numbers.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: He says it is my numbers. Where are those numbers drawn from? Did he ever take the time to read the December 19 statement? He says that it is not less of a tax. It is less of a tax for some products. We made that clear. The price of an automobile will go down $500 or $600 as a result of this tax. Some products will go up in price. But the over-all impact on inflation, as I indicated on December 19, is about 1.25 per cent.
These are misstatements of fact on the part of people like the Leader of the Opposition. People look to him and say, "Surely I can listen to this man with some degree of trust." Obviously, they cannot because those statements of fact are simply wrong.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this is the Minister of Finance who described this new tax as not adding one single cent of additional tax to the Canadian people. It is going to be a licence to print money and he knows it.

Thirty-one times in five years, Mr. Speaker, this minister raised taxes on Canadians. This minister now wants to hire 3,900 new tax collectors whose only job will be to collect this new tax.
The minister had promised small businesses in Canada that eveiy year he would pay them a given amount of money to help them offset the cost involved in collecting the TPS, but now the minister is backtracking.
Would the minister agree that this tax, which the government claims to be a simple levy, will in fact prove to be an outright administrative chaos, a case of administrative anarchy for over 1,250,000 businessmen in Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition asked whether I would advise the Prime Minister of certain details of this tax. I would like to offer to the Leader of the Opposition that if he would like a briefing on this tax I will give it to him personally. Clearly he does not understand anything that he is talking about. How about five o'clock tonight? Tomorrow morning at nine o'clock? Any time the Leader of the Opposition would like to have a briefing on this tax I would like to do it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Who briefed you, Michael?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the member for Ottawa-Vanier is one of the best known supporters of a change from the existing sales tax. He said that quite clearly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


January 26, 1990


Michael Holcombe Wilson: But again he has never made it clear what he would replace it with. Is he going to replace it with a value added type of tax? Is he going to replace it with an increase in the deficit? Is he going to go back to the drawing board and keep the existing tax in place which he says is such a terrible tax. This is the depth of understanding, the depth of commitment to policy development in this country by the Liberal party.
Let me comment on the substance of the question that the hon. member raised.


John Napier Turner: Oh, come on.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: After about a 20-minute preamble on the part of the Leader of the Opposition, he is telling me he does not want me to respond to the specific things that he raised in his preamble. He should be patient.
What I am saying is that we have taken a number of steps in the design of the goods and services tax to help the small business community. We have streamlined accounting procedures which are far simpler for them to comply with than the larger corporations.


John Napier Turner: Why don't you explain that to Mr. Bulloch.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The hon. member just keeps blabbering away here. I think the Leader of the Opposition should understand that he cannot listen when his lips are flapping as quickly as they are.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. I think he has opened up an avenue that may be very helpful to him, in his offer to brief the Leader of the Opposition on the goods and services tax.
Is the Minister of Finance prepared to come with me and with other members of this House, perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to Edmonton, Alberta, to brief Albertans on this goods and services tax as opposed to sending the chairman of the finance committee out to Edmonton, Alberta?
Would he like to undertake today, at his convenience, to attend upon the people of Alberta and to brief them on the goods and services tax?
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have been in the province of Alberta and talked about the goods and services tax. I have made a number of speeches there. I was on a nation-wide open line cable television show which included Calgary, Medicine Hat and other communities in that area. I am happy to go anytime, and I would be happy to do it with the hon. member. We can then compare just what the truth really is about this tax because I think the hon. member for Gloucester probably would be a little straighter with people than with the Leader of the Opposition.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that we can make those arrangements and I will look forward to doing that.
I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Since he seems to be ready to damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead with the goods and services tax, I wonder if the Minister of Finance today would indicate what is the policy of the government, in view of the fact it is insisting on bringing in the goods and services tax which everybody admits will be inflationary. There is some discussion as to how much.
What is the policy of the government with respect to the high interest rates? Is it against the fact that the dollar dropped in the last week to help Canadian exporters? Is it your intention to maintain high interest rates and a high Canadian dollar no matter what damage it does to. the Canadian economy?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have heard from both the Leader of the Opposition and the assistant finance critic for the Liberal party on the damage that they say will be done by the GST to the economy.
It is quite clear on the part of a wide range of analysis that the GST will be good for the economy. It will help our exporters. It will put Canadian domestic producers on a level playing field with importers. Importers now pay one-third less federal sales tax than Canadian producers do. It will help investment. The Leader of the Opposition said it will kill investment. On the contrary, it will reduce the cost of investment, equivalent to a 4 per cent investment tax credit. All of this is going to help the economy.
The hon. member has asked what our policy is on interest rates. Our policy has been designed to get

January 26, 1990
Oral Questions
inflation down. We are seeing some signs that that policy is starting to bear fruit. We are not out of the woods yet.
Now, the hon. member has asked what our policy is on interest rates. Our policy has been designed to get inflation down. We are seeing some signs that that policy is starting to bear fruit. We are not out of the woods yet. We know that we still have some real problems on inflation, but we are seeing some progress and hopefully we will be able to see a continuation of that progress, and as that happens, yes, we will be able to get interest rates down.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The government has already cut transportation subsidies to the Atlantic region. It has cut back unemployment insurance benefits and now wants to introduce a new 7 per cent goods and services tax.
Both producing goods and purchasing them is going to be higher. In fact, recently the tourism association of Nova Scotia has withdrawn its support which it had previously given for the goods and services tax saying: "There is no question the GST will be devastating to the tourism industry."
Given the devastating economic situation facing Atlantic Canada, will the Minister not admit that imposing the goods and services tax will only further accelerate the situation in that region?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition-I guess she will be the Leader of the Opposition the way this party is going.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I notice the members opposite did not like that suggestion. There is just a little bit of sensitivity on the other side of the House.
There have been a number of quite selective comments made by the Leader of the New Democratic Party on the impacts of government policy. One of the things she talks negatively about is the unemployment insurance system changes as they relate to Atlantic Canada. Those changes are going to be very good for Atlantic
Canada relative to the impacts on parts of the country like southwestern Ontario where there are changes that will bite. This is not the case in Atlantic Canada and the New Democratic Party persists in fostering that misleading statement.
We have put a great deal of effort into regional development which includes the moneys that we have put toward the tourism industry. As the Prime Minister noted the other day, we had a 50 per cent increase in regional spending in our first mandate compared to the previous four or five years, and in this mandate it will be about 35 per cent higher. That includes ACOA, that includes the tourism industry, that includes the tourism industry in Atlantic Canada.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance wants to tell the people of the Atlantic region that unemployment insurance cuts are not going to happen to them, he should go there and tell them personally because I think he will hear what they have to say about it.
The Atlantic region is not the only region that is going to suffer under this new goods and services tax. I want to point out to the minister that he should go to the regions of this country and see what is really happening. For example, a snowsuit for a two-year old child in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, costs about $140. If you go to Sparks Street, it costs about $50. A 7 per cent tax on $140 is considerably more than a 7 per cent tax on $50.
With the goods and services tax, I think the minister has to realize that it is going to hurt the regions of this country. Does the minister think this tax is fair to northern Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, these statements that are quite far from the truth must be addressed head on. The goods and services tax will not hurt the regions of the country.
The goods and services tax will improve the position of the resource industries of Canada. It will help them invest. It will help them keep marginal mines open. It will help them export. These are all very important elements to the health of the northern parts of the country as well as the other regions of the country that are reliant on that type of industry.
The goods and services tax will improve, as I said a minute ago, the opportunities for new mines or new paper mills or new logging operations to go into place because the costs of bringing those in will be less, on
January 26, 1990

average, by about 4 per cent than is the case today. Surely the hon. member can understand that it will improve the capacity of the economy to bring those in. That, Mr. Speaker, is why we say that the goods and services tax will not be harmful to the regions of this country.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the minister, as well as going to the Atlantic regions and the north, should also go to the prairie provinces. Agriculture Canada projects that Canadian farm incomes will drop by 40 per cent this year. High interest rates as well as the proposed goods and services tax is only increasing the burden.
There are an increasing number of farm foreclosures, and the minister knows this. But the government insists on proceeding with this new tax which will drive up prices to consumers and drive down prices to farmers.
Will the minister now recognize that he cannot reduce the deficit by throwing farmers further into debt? Do farmers have to turn themselves into corporations before they can be heard by this government?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague says, the Leader of the New Democratic Party does not know what she is talking about. I will make the same offer to her, namely, would she like a briefing on the goods and services tax so she will understand the things that she has just stated now are simply not true.
The tax on inputs to fanners will be totally removed. There are taxes on inputs today. Therefore, the farmers will be better off from that standpoint.
The cost of food to all Canadians, because there will be a removal of all the input taxes on packaging, on transportation, on fuels, and so on will be reduced and the costs for those people who are producing food will be reduced. Again, that is something helpful to the farmers.
Those farmers who export today are carrying an indirect tax, a hidden tax on the exports that they make. The goods and services tax will remove that tax on the export sales that they make, so that again, in the third way, the tax will be beneficial to those farmers who are exporting. Surely, if the hon. member would take the time and be honest with herself, she would understand
Oral Questions
that she is spreading mistruths about the goods and services tax.


LAY-OFFS
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. The Minister must be aware of the fact that General Electric will close its light bulb plant in East Montreal on July 13. I would like to know what action the Minister has taken or intends to take, to persuade the company to reverse a decision that will do away with about 200 jobs, mostly held by women with over 20 years of seniority, who have little or no hope of retraining for new jobs.


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the Department of Labour has been officially advised of this plant closing but, as soon as we are, we will ensure there has been compliance with the regulations under the Canada Labour Code. We will also ensure that those responsible for the plant closing take steps to apply under POWA, a program for older workers.
As far as relocating these people to other jobs is concerned, I can inform the hon. member that for the past year, we and our colleagues at the municipal and federal level have been working with a very active organization in East Montreal, the Association Pro-Est, whose activities include ensuring that workers who have been displaced can find work in another plant.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed in the Minister's reply, because what is needed is not an attempt to provide compensatory programs or unemployment insurance for these workers who are going to lose their jobs. We need action by the Minister himself, who is supposed to be responsible for the economic sector in Montreal. These workers want to keep their jobs. They want to stay at the plant. Is the Minister prepared to approach the company and persuade it to keep its plant open in Montreal? That is the kind of action we would like to see by the Minister. I am sure he is aware, and I will ask him outright, does he know that most of these jobs will be transferred to the United States? Is he prepared to let Canadian jobs be transferred to the United States and let American

January 26, 1990
Oral Questions
garbage come in Canada? Is that the kind of free trade the Minister has in mind?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Mi-chel, who lives in Ottawa, is not very knowledgeable about what is happening in East Montreal. The government I represent has provided more than $13 million worth of investment in new industries and of existing industries through its industrial revitalization program for East Montreal during the past year. The program has also attracted investment by the private sector totalling more than $70 million. I think it makes much better sense and is much better for a region's economy when a government helps thriving businesses come in instead of trying to support businesses that cannot pay their way.


BURIAL OF U.S. WASTE
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Minister of the Environment accused his provincial counterpart of being inconsistent because it only costs $12.50 to bury a ton of garbage in Quebec compared with $100 in the United States. Do the government and the Minister of the Environment suggest increasing the cost to $100 so that Quebec municipalities will pay the same as in the United States? Is he serious? That statement is outrageous. Therefore I call upon the Deputy Prime Minister to ask the Minister of the Environment to withdraw that absurd statement, because his proposal would increase taxes to a level unacceptable to Quebecers. Mr. Bouchard, are you listening to me?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague announced yesterday that he would review a ban on the importation of garbage and any dangerous substances that have crossed the border. My colleague, the Hon. Minister of National Revenue, announced in a departmental co-operation the development of a memorandum of understanding that will allow
us to strengthen our monitoring procedures to stop these waste substances coming from the United States. That is all I heard my hon. colleague say yesterday, and I think it is in the spirit in which the hon. member wishes us to proceed.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Deputy Prime Minister. When will the federal government start doing its job instead of always making absurd demands on the Quebec government. We have been told that legislation and regulations will be forthcoming. When? When will he really understand that American waste is not welcome in Canada? If you truly intend to introduce a bill, when can we expect it?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, let me provide my hon. friend with some startling facts. There have been movements of garbage, not just from the United States to waste sites in Canada but the other way around as well. As I have told the hon. member, it is the intention of the federal government to work co-operatively with the provinces which have, after all, the regulatory authority.
I understand that the province of Quebec has banned all the importation of waste substances to that province. I would assume that other provinces will follow, and when they do, they will, of course, have to desist from moving their own garbage across the border to sites that are more convenient and perhaps less costly in terms of transportation of these materials.
We intend to co-operate with the provinces to catch any rascal that will continue to do what is not acceptable to us in Canada.
=*: * *


TOXIC WASTE
M. Cid Samson (Timmins -Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
January 26, 1990

The people of Saint-Basile-le-Grand, a community that was so tragically affected by the PCB disaster on August 23, 1988, are still living with 130 containers of toxic waste in their environment, at this very moment.
Mr. Speaker, on November 15, 1988, the town council of Saint-Basile-le-Grand, in a letter addressed and delivered personally to the Minister of Transport, requested that the government in Ottawa use federal land to dispose of this toxic waste.
Saint-Basile-le-Grand is still waiting for a reply from the government. Could the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House when the government will be able to respond favourably to the request from Saint-Basile-le-Grand and what it intends to do?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must know that disposing of the PCBs at Saint-Basile-le-Grand is basically the responsibility of the government of Quebec. The federal government is willing to respect that fact but, nevertheless, has been working, and I am thinking more specifically of my colleague at the Department of the Environment, with the government of Quebec. It will continue to do so, and depending on what the government of Quebec decides to do and what its demands are, the federal government will act in terms of these respective jurisdictions, especially at the Department of Transport, because, I repeat, transport is one thing, while where the PCBs are stored is a provincial responsibility.


M. Cid Sampson (Timmins -Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is again directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
According to reports published in Chambly area newspapers shortly after the disaster, the Minister of Transport promised, on behalf of the Prime Minister, that the government would provide financial assistance to the municipality of Saint-Basile-le-Grand, matching any amount paid by the government of Quebec. I may add, Mr. Speaker, and I will quote from a report in the newspaper:
"The Prime Minister also announced that he was prepared to double provincial contributions according to the formula provided in the federal Emergency Measures Act, as the government did in the case of the tornado that struck Edmonton in 1986".
Oral Questions
So far, Quebec has paid Saint-Basile-le-Grand $658,607, the total bill being nearly $2 million.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House why he did not keep his promises to the people of Saint-Basile-le-Grand?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, a few hours after the disaster at Saint-Basile-le-Grand, I went there, on behalf of the government, to give the people guarantees that the federal government would be directly involved with the government of Quebec in this matter.
My colleague ought to know, if he bothered to get the information from the government of Quebec, that my colleague at the Department of the Environment specified what the federal government's participation would be in terms of compensation-


Some hon. members:: -oh, oh!


Benoît Bouchard: -yes I know, the Leader of the New Democratic Party wrote to the government. The matter is being discussed with the government of Quebec, but we must tread carefully.
Meanwhile, I think the people in the riding of Chambly would rather hear what the Leader of the New Democratic Party has to say about her position on the Meech Lake Accord.


TRACKER AIRCRAFT
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. The government is in the process of tendering the mid-range tracker surveillance to the private sector at a stated cost of $28 million over five years, a tender which people in the industry say will cost as much as $60 million.
Why is the government going to tender at all when it already has a proposal which can do the job for $14 million? In fact, why is the government closing CFB Summerside if it is prepared to pay private industry $50 million to $60 million for a job that DND now does for half that amount?
Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that some months ago, the Department of National Defence decided to decommission the Tracker patrol aircraft from service. These aircraft are very old and will in time be replaced by appropriate and more modern aircraft. They

January 26, 1990
Oral Questions
are not nearly as suited to fisheries patrol work as modern pressurized aircraft with proper up-to-date electronic gear for identification, localizing and helping in the apprehension of fishing vessels that violate our fishing regulations.
For all these reasons, we have gone through the normal tendering process to seek public tenders for a service which we estimate will cost some $28 million over the next five-year period to replace those Tracker aircraft. We believe that we will get the best service money can buy for that amount.


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. There are people in the industry now doing the Tracker refits who say that with the Tracker air frame, the Tracker is by far the most superior aircraft that can do the job.
The minister has received a proposal from the IMP group which would see the Tracker squadron taken over by that company, crewed by an air reserve squadron and operating out of Summerside at a cost of $12 million to $14 million. That proposal was sent to the minister last December and the proposal has not been responded to.
Why has the minister totally ignored this proposal from a company that is expert with the Tracker aircraft and whose proposal would establish the foundation of an aeronautical industry for Summerside? Or is Summer-side being blacklisted by this government?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I understand the concern that the hon. member and all members of this House have for the circumstances in Summerside which result from the closing of CFB Summerside. However, the hon. member should not pretend or lead his constituents to presume that we could replace the closing of that base by mere maintenance of the fisheries patrol activity from Summerside.
The specifications for the modem patrol service that we require, not a 1960s style patrol service but a 1990s style fisheries patrol service, have been drawn up to take into account the best aircraft capability including pressurization, on-board radar and other equipment that will be required to do a good job.
I have every confidence that the service which is successful in winning this tender will be the very best we can find in Canada.


CFB SUMMERSIDE
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Last Tuesday, the Prime Minister told this House that every time he visits Atlantic Canada he commits this government to something constructive and useful for Atlantic Canadians. It is apparent that the Prime Minister has not visited Prince Edward Island for some time.
The people of my province have waited since the April budget announcement for this government to take responsibility for its decision to close CFB Summerside. Last week, the Prime Minister's inner cabinet met to discuss alternatives for CFB Summerside.
When is this government going to make an announcement of a firm commitment of jobs for the Summerside area?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member should be reminded that CFB Summerside is not yet closed. It is still in operation. She should also be reminded to listen to her Premier who announced yesterday how pleased he was with the co-operation he received from the federal government in helping to bring about the announcement by Cavendish Farms in that region of the province which will be very important.
She should also be aware, as the Prime Minister has indicated and as she alluded to in her question, that there is a committee of cabinet looking at what can be done to ease the changes occurring as a result of the DND decisions. She will, I am sure, when she sees the whole picture be very pleased with the result.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly well aware that the base is not closed. We all hope that it will not be closed, but this is a very serious matter on Prince Edward Island. If it is closed, it
January 26, 1990

means we will lose $60 million from the economy and 1,300 direct jobs.
My supplementary question is directed to the same minister. The town of Summerside has been waiting for nine months for this decision. The business and investment confidence in that whole community is dropping every day because of a lack of commitment from this government.
Will the government make a firm commitment today, assuming the base is closed, that it will restore the economy of Summerside to where it was dollar for dollar before that announcement of April 27?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the announcement yesterday by Cavendish for an investment of up to $80 million without any federal or provincial contribution is an indication that those who are investing their own money have tremendous confidence in P.E.I. and in the economy there. I do not understand why the opposition finds it so useful to continually talk doom and gloom when those who are investing their own money do not have that same view at all.
Second, change is regrettable but change is inevitable. Every year in Canada, on average 100,000 corporations disappear and 130,000 new corporations are created. Four million people change jobs. Those things happen.
For the opposition to continue to say, "Please prevent any change from occurring ever in our areas. Please step in and stop change," is for us to stand still in time and that is impossible as well as being a silly thing to do.
We are addressing the situation there. We have extensive programs to help people who are ill-affected by change. We have extensive regional development programs. We have an agency in Moncton newly established. It has a tremendous track record of helping Atlantic Canada. We are paying attention to the problem.
We would ask the opposition to co-operate to see that we make the change beneficial instead of saying at all times, "Stop all change." That is not possible. It is not wise.
Oral Questions


TRANSPORTATION OF TOXIC WASTE
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned of the illegal waste imports into Quebec. Today I have to report to the House that I have learned that a U.S. company is once more planning to ship toxic material to Detroit and across the Detroit River to Windsor.
The Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Transport have both written to me indicating they have no jurisdiction in this matter. I want to ask the Minister of Transport how this can possibly be true when these barge operations will take place across a busy international waterway and when, in fact, the guidelines for environmental assessment indicate that these guidelines are to be applied in the case of anything in which the federal jurisdiction, that is, international waterways will be affected.
How can this be true that this ministry and the Ministry of the Environment have no jurisdiction in this serious matter?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, if I well understand the question, my friend talks about planning to do something. I am sorry, but I do not believe that either the Minister of the Environment or myself could deal with something which could be a possibility. I would prefer if my friend could give me some certainty at a time when, along with the Minister of the Environment, I will be able to deal with that.
The way I heard and understood the question, it is a possibility the American company plans to do something. I would prefer to have more certitude before answering that kind of question.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in this case the company has already had informal discussions with the Department of National Revenue and the Customs people about the shifting of Customs officers to this new private dock which they intend to use for these cross river shipments.
We are talking about something which is very much in the works. I want this government to make a commitment that it will not be prepared to simply let this happen, that this environmental danger, especially to people down river in my constituency, will be forced to undergo environmental review procedures such as any

January 26, 1990
Oral Questions
significant project that people in federal jurisdictions should have to face.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I do not say that the question is not relevant. I say that the question is premature. The government will consider very seriously that kind of matter.
My friend said that they started with informal discussions. As far as the government and I are concerned, it is not sufficiently specific to be able to give the appropriate answer. As soon as the company will be more specific, I believe the Minister of the Environment and myself will be more able to answer what I consider to be a relevant question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the House would not want to close Question Period before hearing from the member for Gander-Grand Falls.


AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has decided to hire American air traffic controllers not only at Pearson International but at other centres throughout Canada.
In Newfoundland, according to the internal memo that I have here, the government is going to hire 20 Americans with fat contracts paying them more than Canadian controllers get to go our job starved province of Newfoundland.
Because the memo says that they are going to be hired next week, will the Minister of Transport intervene and cancel these contracts to Americans who are taking highly paid Public Service jobs that Canadians want and need? I have met with the Canadian Air Traffic Controllers Association. It says we can solve the problem here.
Why is that under this government the Americans are always flying high while Canadians are grounded?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my friend that I am aware that the Gander centre for air traffic controllers is understaffed. We are taking that into very serious consideration. As a matter of fact, we have 18 students
on site training in Gander; 10 from Newfoundland and 8 from the other Atlantic provinces.
I also met Mr. Fisher from CATCA and he is supposed to provide me with a list of 52 people who are ready to move from Atlantic Canada and elsewhere to Gander. If I can get that list we will consider that very seriously.
In the meantime, my friend knows very well that safety is the priority of the department and we have to staff Gander in any event. Of course we will give priority to Canadians, but we will also give priority to safety.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the solution that the minister just mentioned is the solution that I have been suggesting for a long time. It is not only Gander. It is Vancouver and Montreal, if they could get away with it, but in Montreal you have to speak French as well as English.

Montreal now needs 30 more bilingual controllers.
My question is for the minister responsible for the decisions to hire Americans. What will the government do in Montreal now? Will they look for Cajuns from Louisiana?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to compliment my friend on his French. He is so good that I will recommend him for a job as an air traffic controller in Montreal.

Mr. Speaker, the situation in Montreal is different from Gander, because we are now able, within the resources we have in Quebec, since no control tower is short-staffed, to find enough controllers from among Quebec applicants to meet Montreal's requirements while the students are in training. The group which starts training in Cornwall this spring is francophone and while these young people are being trained, we will have enough people within the Province of Quebec to satisfy-
Once again, this time in French, I would like to compliment my colleague for learning French. I think it is extremely important. Again, we appreciate it a lot.
January 26, 1990


POINT OF ORDER
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period today when our leader, the hon. member for Yukon, was asking a question about the devastating situation with regard to the farming industry in western Canada, I distinctly heard the Minister of Supply and Services use the words "bullshit" and "lie" with regard to her remarks.
I recognize that from time to time in this House we disagree with the veracity of a statement or we disagree with the interpretation of an economic situation in this country. That is certainly within the bounds of Parliament.
However I think there has been a rising level of heckling taking place over the last few weeks with regard to our leader in the House. I believe that the Minister of Supply and Services has overstepped the bounds of parliamentary dignity.
I quote from Citation 320 at page 105 of Beauchesne's that the word "bullshit" is not acceptable. That is with regard to Debates of September 19, 1973, page 6736.
Mr. Speaker, when you have the time and if you wish to refer to page 107 of Beauchesne's, you will see that the word "lie" is mentioned. The use of the word "lie" is listed on page 108. For your edification, Mr. Speaker, the references refer to Debates, April 23, 1959; Debates, May 27, 1959; January 5, 1960; March 1, 1960; June 1, 1960; June 10, 1960; August 5, 1960-a very active year-February 20, 1961; June 26, 1961; September 14, 1961; February 22, 1962; November 15, 1962; October 18,1963; October 7, 1964; November 3, 1964; December 4, 1964; December 10, 1964; December 10, 1964 again-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I get the point of the member's invention. Does the minister wish to reply?


Hon. Paul Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has adequately proven to me that these words have been used frequently in the House of Commons. I do recognize, though, that under Beauchesne's they are deemed as being unparliamentary.
Business of the House
I guess I was driven to using the point of using this unparliamentary language by the complete inaccuracy of the statements put forth by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. Its members did that in the last election campaign. They were roundly defeated when they said that about medicare and about social programs under the free trade agreement. They persist on using inaccurate, fallacious information which absolutely devastates any arguments they are trying to make.
I do recognize that those words may have been out of order in the situation. I would withdraw them, but I would hope that the hon. leader would try to learn something about the GST.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The member has withdrawn.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have received a written notice from the hon. member for North Island-Powell River that he is unable to move his motion during the hour provided for Private Members' Business on Monday, January 29, 1990.

Since it was not possible to switch places on the priority list, pursuant to Standing Order 94, I order the Clerk to move this item to the bottom of the priority list.
The time for Private Members' Business will therefore be cancelled, pursuant to Standing Order 94.

Since there will be nothing before the House at one o'clock, the sitting will have to be suspended after prayers until two o'clock. Does that pose a problem for the House?


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the member who was to move a motion under Private Members' Business on Monday cannot attend, I think that you would find there is consent for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order of the House, on
Monday, January 29, 1990 the House meets at two o'clock p.m. for

January 26, 1990
Routine Proceedings
"Statements by Members", followed by "Oral Questions" and the
remaining order of business as provided for Mondays.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Regina- Lumsden on a point of order.


POINT OF ORDER
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the precedents and the requirements for any kind of withdrawal or apology to the House of Commons must be unequivocal and straightforward with no qualifications. I do not believe that the remarks of the hon. minister who just tried to make some kind of an apology and withdrawal meets those requirements.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was very clear in withdrawing those unparliamentary words which have been so frequently used in this place and at the same time pointed out that perhaps they should speak the truth fully.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That's a qualification.


Rodney Edward Murphy: That's not acceptable.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair accepts the words of the minister.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I rise today, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), to table, in both official languages, a document entitled "Goods and Services Ihx Technical Paper".


PETITIONS
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 59 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.\



EMPLOYMENT EQUITY


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today with what I know will be welcome news for all those members of this House who share this government's commitment to the principle of equal pay for work of equal value.
As members may recall, in the Speech from the Throne in 1984 the Prime Minister committed this government to achieving equal pay for work of equal value in the federal Public Service as an integral step leading to the full economic equality of women.

In line with this objective, the government has already introduced many measures to achieve employment equity, such as increasing the percentage of women in the federal government and its agencies, boards and commissions, and ensuring that women are involved in decision-making at all administrative levels.
January 26, 1990

Equal pay for work of equal value is also an essential condition if the government is to manage its operations more effectively. To do so, the government must acknowledge the contribution of public service employees. It must treat them fairly and promote a high level of job satisfaction and a healthy team spirit, if they are to serve Canadians with the requisite professional expertise and dedication.
This new decision will reinforce the project referred to as "Public Service 2000", announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) last December. Its goal is to ensure that Canadians have the best-managed public service there is.
Mr. Speaker, we have made great progress in achieving our employment equity objective. We have launched a program aimed at streamlining administrative procedures and letting managers manage the resources at their disposal. The government has agreed on a host of other measures to manage government more effectively and reduce social and economic inequalities.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I want to describe our actions to implement equal pay for work of equal value in the federal Public Service. In practical terms, equal pay for work of equal value means the elimination of inequities in pay between workers in female dominated occupational groups and workers in male dominated groups.
In March 1985 I established a joint union-management committee to look at the means through which gender based equities in pay could be corrected. The objective was to develop a methodology to identify and quantify those inequities and to make recommendations on how to redress them in a proactive manner throughout the federal Public Service.
At that time all 13 Public Service unions accepted my invitation to participate with Treasury Board officials on the committee and worked co-operatively toward that common objective. In addition, officials from the Canadian Human Rights Commission participated as observers.
As this House can appreciate, assessing gender based inequities in pay across the entire federal Public Service is a very complex task. There are some 220,000 federal public servants in addition to the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP. They are 70 different occupation-
Routine Proceedings
al groups, 53 of which are assessed by the committee as being male dominated and 9 as female dominated.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am told this pay equity study is the largest of its kind ever conducted anywhere in the world. Obviously, it was not possible to assess every position in each of these occupational groups. Through the efforts of the committee and the assistance of independent consultants, a methodology was established that all agreed would be statistically sound and produce valid results.
In total, 4,419 employees were surveyed and 3,200 positions were analyzed by nine evaluation committees against the criteria established by the consultants selected by the Joint Union-Management committee. These consultants have participated in all aspects of the committee's work. Their work is now complete, although they have identified continuing apparent gender bias in some of the job evaluations.

Treasury Board and the Canadian Human Rights Commission have concurred that some further analysis is required to clarify these situations, but these adjustments are not of a nature or scope that would justify further delays in government action. Since the government believes that the public interest will be best served by moving forward, I am announcing today that the federal government will implement equal pay for equal value adjustments immediately.
These adjustments will come in two phases and affect approximately 70,000 federal public servants. The first phase has an immediate cost to the federal government of approximately $317 million in retroactive lump sum payments to those affected by past and current inequities. These retroactive payments will be made to all affected employees as quickly as possible.
The second phase involves about $76 million in annual salary adjustments in order to equalize pay rates between persons in female dominated occupations and those in male dominated occupations. These adjustments will be effective April 1 of this year.
As I indicated earlier, the process involved in identifying and analysing pay discrimination within the Public Service has been a lengthy and a complex one. When we started the process we had hopes that we could complete it in a relatively short period of time. While this did not prove to be the case, this government does not believe

January 26, 1990
Routine Proceedings
that those public servants affected by pay discrimination, male as well as female, should be forced to shoulder the burden of any further inevitable delays.
Therefore, I am announcing today that the lump sum settlement payments will be made retroactive to March 31, 1985, the month in which I announced the establishment of the joint union-management committee. I believe this is fair to the employees concerned and consistent with the spirit of natural justice to which our government is committed.
In real terms, this represents a retroactive payment that averages approximately $4,800 per person affected, and these employees reside in communities from one end of the country to the other.

That is just an average, and does not reflect individual circumstances in specific positions. All levels of each occupational group will receive the same amount, and we will make strenuous efforts to deliver back pay cheques as soon as possible in the next few months. This means, for example, that a secretary working in a point-of-entry customs office could receive up to $5,900 or a clerk working in an Environment Canada district office could receive up to $3,500.
Decisions being announced today will involve adjustments for four of the nine female-dominated groups. The 70,000 employees belonging to these four groups represent more than 90 per cent of all employees in female-dominated groups. It appears that the work of a fifth group, data processing, was not under-valued. The four remaining groups have already received equal pay for work of equal value adjustments.
Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out earlier, although a number of lesser points remain to be settled before the committee can finalize its work, there was obviously a case for immediate action.
I want to give the House the assurance that although we are acting now, this does not prejudge any conclusions that might be reached by the Canadian Human Rights Commission on matters that are pending.
I want to make it very clear today that I am announcing entitlements based upon an independent assessment of what these jobs are worth, in relation to other jobs of equal and similar value. They reflect the law of the land and our commitment to applying fairly the principle of equal pay for work of equal value.

It is my belief that all members of this House will applaud the initiative that I am announcing today. I am convinced that this demonstration of our commitment will send the right signal to all employers across this country, whether or not they fall under federal jurisdiction. We are serious about equal pay for work of equal value and we will continue to do our utmost to improve the economic equality of women in this country.
Implementing equal pay for work of equal value in business, in industry and in government is necessary for economic progress. But, more than that, it is a critical social issue of national importance. We cannot move forward as a nation unless we are willing to move forward together as a nation of equals.
Economic discrimination between men and women cannot be tolerated. It is an affront to the value that we as Canadians espouse; it runs contrary to the goals that we all share; and it limits the ability of every Canadian to give what they have to offer to build a future for the nation as a whole.
As I said earlier, ending economic discrimination and ensuring the full participation of women in Canadian society have been basic goals of this government since 1984. Because of this commitment I believe that it is incumbent upon this government to demonstrate leadership and make progress wherever possible, and it is in this spirit that I am making this announcement today. To delay any further, to wait until all the i's are dotted and the t's crossed, does not demonstrate that spirit and does not demonstrate leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this settlement is a reasonable one based as it is upon a statistically-sound methodology and will be welcomed by those affected, especially women in the public service. Public servants, no matter
January 26, 1990

what any group might say to the contrary, are committed to serving the nation. In return, the nation must treat public servants with fairness, with equity and with the same respect for the law which the government demands from all participants in our society.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, while I do indeed applaud the minister's words, as I have many times in this House, I regret that the actions do not always match the words. Certainly we support and welcome any initiative toward economic justice, equal pay for work of equal value, employment equity, and, as the minister said, basic equality in our society and marching forward into the future on a fully equal basis between men and women.
Nonetheless, I welcome this first hopeful, if tentative, step toward finally paying 70,000 people who work for the people of Canada what their work is really worth.
It has been a privilege to stand in this House half a dozen times since last spring and raise the long outstanding promise and the failure of this government to implement pay equity. On virtually every occasion that I have spoken in this House on any employment or human rights issue, the government has been taken to task for its failure to bring its treatment of workers into conformity, not with some ideal principle but with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of this country.
My colleagues on numerous occasions have reminded the government of its obligation to pay people an income that matches the value of the work they do, not based on their gender.
Through this fall we have seen three strikes with horrendous economic and human costs because the government has treated basic justice as something to be used as a bargaining chip at the negotiating table. We have seen contempt for a decision of the Human Rights Commission. We have seen the withholding of money to which people are entitled until they are forced into a settlement of a contract the government has been unable to negotiate in two years.
Even today, in this action which is justice delayed and finally under way, we see a unilateral action and a failure
Routine Proceedings
to make a commitment to proceeding to implement fully the results of the study to date.
I suspect that once again, although I welcome the specifics of the announcement, the government is acting not out of a commitment to fairness and justice but out of a very realistic recognition that the major union involved in the study of pay equity has withdrawn out of frustration and in fact intends to take several cases back before the Public Service Staff Relations Boards and the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
I suspect that with the suspension of this action cases now before the Human Rights Commission that were simply suspended in action while the study was going on may be reactivated. I remind the House that we are talking about 50,000 underpaid workers who launched the case with the Canadian Human Rights Commission several years ago and a thousand or more nursing employees who have a similar case before the commission.
Having let the talks lapse, having failed to come to some agreement and some commitment as part of that joint union-management study that the results of the study would be accepted and there would be a short timetable for implementation, the minister is now arriving like Santa Claus and handing out goodies as if they were some kind of largess from the government, when really all these hundreds of millions of dollars represent is injustice that is finally starting to be righted, money that they were entitled to for many, many years.
I want to look at this announcement very carefully and compare it with what in fact has been coming out of the study of positions. If we go back to the Human Rights Commission case of the hospital workers we find that each hospital worker was entitled not to something in the neighbour of $3,000 or $4,000 but on average to $10,000 each over the period of time.
Estimates have been made that implementing the employment equity study would cost in the neighbourhood of between $200 million to $300 million annually, not retroactively over five years. Thus I want to have a very close look at this. I want to assure the minister that the pressure is still on to make sure that full and complete pay equity throughout the Public Service is implemented, that this is an interim step in the right

January 26, 1990
Routine Proceedings
direction but that until people have a wage classification that reflects the value of their work we do not have justice in the Public Service of Canada.
Let the minister be under no illusion. The people who receive this cash will welcome it. They need it because they are among the lowest paid employees of the Government of Canada in many cases.
Let there be no misunderstanding that that will not dampen their fervour for full justice in the pay cheques they receive, not token equalization payments but full justice in their salaries and in their classification, a full recognition that their work has value to the people of Canada and that it will be paid for equitably.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I too welcome the statement of the President of Treasury Board today. It is certainly a step in the right direction. I am fearful that it does not go far enough. It sounds like a lot of money when we hear the figure $76 million. But we all must remember that this is money that these women have earned over the years. In fact, because of the lack of pay equity it is money out of which they have been cheated.
I would like to ask the minister a couple of questions about what he said today. I will just present them and see if we can follow up on them later.
Will these equalization payments be taxed at a higher rate? Some of the undervalued occupational groups will not receive these equalization payments, if I understand what the minister said. He indicated word processors. This is undervalued women's work. It sounds like it will continue to be undervalued. Equalization payments should be reflected in salaries that women receive and not a separate payment.
This week the Public Service Alliance of Canada withdrew from the joint union-management pay equity study. Reports on the news indicate that they felt that they had struggled for five years. The Public Service Alliance Vice-President said that the study was becoming a farce.
In the face of a major public campaign by the alliance for pay equity there was a possibility that 80,000 complaints would be filed with the Human Rights Commission. I wonder if this is why the government is now responding. Is it fearful of those complaints being raised with the Human Rights Commission? Women have
experienced pay discrimination within the Public Service of Canada ever since the Public Service was first formed.
Pay discrimination exists in every occupational group that is made up mostly of women. The government is proposing retroactive payments to March of 1985, but I do not see any time frame in the statement by the minister.
When will they receive this money? Will it come this month? Will it come next month? Will it come next year? The record of the government has not been good on this. The minister said that there are still some minor issues that are yet to be resolved. What are these minor issues? Are they really minor issues?
This is the same government that has legislated female hospital workers back to work instead of dealing with their demand for equal pay for work of equal value, which is their right.
I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board, what about these workers? Are they going to be dealt with? When are they going to benefit? When are they going to be treated equally, fairly and equitably on their demands for equal pay for work of equal value?
The Minister mentioned progress toward employment equity. Employment equity is not pay equity. His own colleague in the House of Commons, the Minister of State for Employment and Immigration, said in the House just this week that there has been very little progress made toward employment equity, which is a separate matter from pay equity.
The women in Canada make up the majority of the poor. If the minister is really serious about improving economic equality for women in this country, and if this government were really serious about improving the conditions and the equality of women in Canada, it would reindex family allowance which has been dein-dexed. It would raise old age security benefits for all older Canadians, as well as the guaranteed income supplement. Women make up the majority of the poor in this country. Elderly women make up the majority of the poor elderly.
I agree with the statement of the minister that we cannot move together forward as a nation unless we are prepared to move forward together as a nation of equals. I appreciate the minister's comments. It is very true that we must all work toward this goal. To become a nation of
January 26, 1990

equals we must really believe in equality. We must act on it always, not just when we are forced to.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask for unanimous consent of the House to ask a related question of the minister.
I want to commend him for some of the steps that have been taken today, while I also support very strongly the position raised by my colleague.
The question I would like unanimous consent to ask has to do with systemic discrimination that continues in the Public Service against the employment of visible minorities. I am sure the minister knows that his government target for hiring minorities is far below the rate of participation of such people in the regular workforce. Even with such a low target, only a little over 1 per cent of federal employees are people of colour.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the question involved is not directly related to the subject.
My second concern is that the longstanding tradition of the House concerning statements is a very important one. To have us add to a statement a period for questions would be a very unusual precedent, one that I am sure most members in the House would not want to accept. So we would decline.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order.
The request is highly unusual and, I think, highly unfair to the House. There is a period set aside every day for questions to the minister. If we want to enter into debate there is a way to have a debate, one in which all parties can participate.
I really must respond to the point raised by the member opposite who thinks that employment equity is a separate issue from pay equity. I am afraid he is quite wrong. He had better get himself a little better informed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That sounds like a matter for debate.
Routine Proceedings STRIKING COMMITTEE



TWENTY-NINTH AND THIRTIETH REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the twenty-ninth report of the Striking Committee.
While I am on my feet, I have the honour to present the thirtieth report of the Striking Committee.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the report later this day. I would ask that we dispense with the reading of the report by the Clerk at the table as that report concerns only membership changes to committees.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I move concurrence in the third report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts presented to the House.
Under ordinary circumstances the tradition has been to notify those members of the Public Accounts Committee that I was going to move concurrence in this particular report. However, the member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia and the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke are not in the House-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member.
The hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt has the floor for a motion to concur in the third report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
Is there agreement that the House will concur in the thirtieth report of the Striking Committee presented by the hon. member for Peace River?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

January 26, 1990
Routine Proceedings


Stanley J. Hovdebo: The member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia and the member for Renfrew-Nipis-sing-Pembroke, who are the two members of the steering committee, were not in the House this morning so I was unable to contact them. I am proceeding with this concurrence motion in the hope that should they want to put remarks, they may do so at some time in the future.
The third report of the Public Accounts Committee deals with the Auditor General's comments on the agricultural report of 1988 regarding the development of a number of issues on which he felt, or his office felt, the effectiveness of the Department of Agriculture needed to be questioned.
Since I have spent a considerable amount of my life and my time here in the House dealing with agricultural issues, I want to move concurrence at this time. I do so because there are a number of issues dealing with food safety, the disease of animals and pesticide control. The information that is given to Parliament and which is discussed in this particular report are going to make or can make a difference in what happens relative to the agricultural industry in the next little while.
I think everybody in this House recognizes that the agricultural industry across Canada is feeling the effects of a recession which is not necessarily felt in many other parts of the economy. It is a recession which indicates that during the next few years, or the next year alone, we will have in Saskatchewan a 101 per cent reduction in income. For the first time since the 1930s the farmers of Saskatchewan will receive less income than they will pay out in costs. In other words, they will have on a general basis a negative income. Very few farmers will make more than they will pay out in costs of operation.
There is a need to bring this matter to the attention of this government. I am doing that by asking Parliament to concur in something which would assist in having the limelight focused on the difficulties of agriculture in the next year or at present.
The Auditor General in his report called upon the department to strengthen the food inspection practices. The theme of his audit findings was the need to assess the risks. He felt and expressed very articulately that although there was a considerable amount of money
being spent on food safety, there was no priority to make sure that those items which were the most dangerous to the safety of the people of Canada were getting the kind of priority that they should.
As many of you will know, in 1984,1985 and 1986, after the Nielsen report to this House, this government reduced the number of inspectors. It left the responsibility for the inspection and safety of foods more to those companies that are producing or processing the foods, especially in the case of meat but in other foods as well. The cost is now borne by the processor. Consequently, unless the specific requirements are stated and recognized as being needed, there is a danger of moving away from that. The Public Accounts Committee made reference to that but did not make a recommendation in that particular area.
Another area which is very close to the hearts of most Canadians these days is the area of pesticide regulations. You may know, Mr. Speaker, that there is a tremendous backlog of pesticide testing requests. These are pesticides which pose a threat to human health and the environment.
The process by which the government registers pesticides, although it is fairly adequate, has been backed up to such an extent that many pesticides are registered on a temporary basis to be allowed for use in the short term. It takes about three years for a pesticide to go through all the registration processes. Often, when they are renewed they are not put through the same level of testing as they were originally.
Quite often the impact of pesticides in our environment is cumulative. We do not know too much about them when they hit the environment. We find out later. If you look at the number of pesticides that were once quite common in our environment you will see that at the moment they are now banned because we did not really know what their effect was. Again, the committee concludes that there is a need for continued progress in addressing the backlog in pesticide testing, but also a need for the establishment of a workforce which will allow these testings to be completed more quickly.
The basic concern of this report and the part with respect to which the Public Accounts Committee made the most far-reaching recommendations dealt with the information which was available to Parliament as well as
January 26, 1990

to people who are conscious of agricultural development. It is information relative to the Estimates.
In 1980 when the Part Ills were first brought in I was on the Public Accounts Committee. The members of the committee and the House had hoped that the Part Ills of the Estimates would put before the people of Canada and Parliament in concise, practical and straightforward terms the kind of information which would allow Parliament to know exactly how the money estimated would be spent. The Part Ills for each department and for each agency were to give that kind of information to the people of Canada and to this House.
The committee expressed some concern and made some specific recommendations regarding the Part Ills. Although we at the time were dealing with the Part Ills relative to agriculture, this terminology, these concerns, these recommendations could be taken to heart by almost every agency and every department that presently produces Part Ills, which is every department and every agency in the government.
Those Part Ills, when they came out, fulfilled the requirement to a certain extent. As the people within the departments and the agencies became more used to writing them and found that they were being used to look deeper into the operations of the department or the agency, they had a tendency to write a little more obliquely. Consequently, it was to the point where the committee felt that Part Ills, particularly these agricultural Part Ills, did not give the kind of information which we should expect them to have.
The committee presented its twelfth report which was tabled on December 17, 1981, in the Thirty-second Parliament. A motion for concurrence in that report was brought forward and passed by this House. At that time the Public Accounts Committee noted the need to provide procedures to ensure that the integrity, accuracy and consistency of information in Part Ills was preserved and maintained.
In the same report the committee recognized the role of the Comptroller General in responding to these concerns. As you will know, Mr. Speaker, the Part Ills are not the responsibility of the Auditor General but
Routine Proceedings
basically come from Treasury Board and the Comptroller General. Their quality is vetted by those departments.
The committee was told that more resources had been allocated to the highest priority areas, notably meat hygiene, pesticide control, control of plant and animal diseases and labour relations.
The committee then expected that it should be able to go to the Part Ills and find out what was in them. That turned out to be almost impossible. What was actually in the Part Ills was quite often less than was available before. Expenditures that appeared in one year did not appear in the next. Expenditures that were explained vaguely were not clarified in the next year, even if the clarification seemed consistent with understanding.
With the shift of resources there was not a parallel change in clear, consistent data. Expenditures and person-years, together with appropriate explanations in the text, identified the difference between one fiscal year and the second fiscal year. Sometimes we found that the amount put into the Estimates had been reduced considerably or increased considerably with no parallel indication of how those changes were going to affect the operation of the department.
Consequently, the committee made a number of recommendations relative to the Part Ills. This I suppose to a certain extent is the basis for the belief that concurrence makes a certain amount of sense.
These are the recommendations. First, the committee recommends that the department ensure that the 1990-91 and future Part Ills of the Estimates contain accurate, clear, consistent and complete information, notably in relation to the resource allocation and program results. We asked the department, in the case of agriculture, to give us information, a written progress report as soon as possible.
We also called upon the Comptroller General to respond to the problems raised by the committee and the Auditor General with regard to the Part Ills and the Estimates in 1989-90 and earlier Parts Ills.
We recommend that the Auditor General assess the responses to recommendations (b) and (c) above and report the findings to the committee.
The process of this committee delved into agriculture very seriously, but it was a process which I think and the committee thinks should be extended to as many departments as possible. This is a direction, I suppose, that we are suggesting be picked up by every department and

January 26, 1990
Routine Proceedings
every agency which finds itself required to put before the public and before the House of Commons information regarding their programs in the Part Ills of the Estimates.
The Part Ills are well done. They are a great improvement over the huge blue book which you, Mr. Speaker, would have had when you first came to this House of Commons. However, after a while they have a tendency to disintegrate to a certain extent.
We made another series of recommendations in which I think this House should concur. Those recommendations relate to the control of animal and plant disease. These recommendations are mostly relative to export, but they could go much further than that if it was required by the Department of Agriculture.
At the moment, as far as the environment is concerned, we are being faced with a need to have very specific recommendations relative to the health of animals and animal disease. If you have been watching the news, you will have seen that there have been recommendations that the bison herd in Buffalo National Park in northern Alberta be slaughtered to ensure that there will not be a spread of brucellosis.
That is internal. We made recommendations in this report which I think should be concurred in, that the government give early consideration to the introduction of amendments to be sure that the imports of animals and plants be controlled better than it is. In the last little while I have had a lot to do with the importation of goats from Australia and I have found that you cannot bring goats into Canada from Australia because the regulations for such a procedure are not in place.
What we were talking about or recommending in this particular report is that those regulations to be put in place, reviewed, and brought up to date.
I call on the House to concur in the recommendations in this report that the Public Accounts Committee put before this House in the third report.


Mr. Riis:: I, too, would like to support the suggestion that we concur in the report. It is an important report, as the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt has outlined.
There are two points that I would like to-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the hon. member for Peace River.


Albert Glen Cooper: I am not certain, but the way that the hon. member began his remarks led me to believe that he was entering into debate rather than questions or comments.
He is asking questions or making comments. That is fine then, Mr. Speaker. I just want to signal my intention to enter the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair gave the floor to the member for Kamloops on questions and comments.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Perhaps my opening comments led my hon. friend to believe I was launching into a 20-minute speech. Such is not the case. However, I have two questions, one regarding sheep from Australia and another regarding deer from New Zealand.
Some time ago there was a project where people from Australia were intending to bring live lambs from New Zealand to the coast of British Columbia. At that point, they would be off-loaded on the coast of British Columbia and then fattened and raised in B.C. for eventual slaughtering and market.
One of the problems that this group faced was the whole matter of inspections and the fact that the lambs would be quarantined presumably for some time, and I am not certain of the details and that is part of the question to my hon. colleague.
This, I must say, caused a negative reaction from a number of the western sheep growers because they thought that this was a way of importing cheap lamb from Australia and would really provide some unfair marketing, as far as their own products were concerned.
I have a question for my hon. friend for Saskatoon- Humboldt first of all. Does he feel that the regulations, as they presently exist when it comes to sheep being imported into a country, need to be updated and brought into a more modem context to recognize the more recent diseases and some of the problems faced with increasing importation of live animals? Are there any
January 26, 1990

special problems that people who are interested in raising deer, fallow farms I think they are called, experience, particularly bringing in does and bucks from New Zealand?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Part of the recommendations which the public accounts committee put before this House deal exactly with that question or are relative to that question, the need to amend the present regulations. We all agree that we have to be absolutely sure that no disease is brought in which we do not understand or recognize here, or any other disease that we have in this country. For instance, there are different kinds of brucellosis in Australia than there are in Canada.
At present the regulations for importing goats, sheep, and so on are specific, the idea being to keep them in quarantine long enough so that we can be sure that they are not carrying a disease. Even then it is a dangerous procedure. When an animal is brought in, it may have developed resistance or even be immune to certain kinds of diseases because it has been with a particular herd which has developed this immunity. The moment it is put with other animals, the disease then breaks out and you have it within your herd. There are intermediate quarantines which allow the animals to be put with the kinds of animals they are going to be living with after they are brought into the country so that if there is any possibility of the spread of disease it will be recognized.
The answer to the question is basically that it is not as simple as just saying we need new regulations. It is much more a matter of knowing for sure that we are not bringing in any diseases and knowing how to control those situations. It is a very complex structure.


Mr. Bellemare:: Mr. Speaker, it is mostly a comment that I would like to make, since I am on the Committee.
Since we have very little time left for this question, I would like to raise the matter of the-

-third report of the Public Accounts Committee. I have grave concerns, as the report states, regarding the inspection of food.
Routine Proceedings
One concern that I would like to add that is not written in the report is the fact that the government is now going to be permitting food irradiation, especially in the poultry field. With free trade in place we will see now the dismantling of the management of that particular industry and we will be getting poultry from the United States.
More importantly, I am concerned that there will be no labelling of food that is irradiated. I believe the consumer community should have the right to have food that is going to be irradiated labelled properly so that people may make a choice as to whether or not to buy irradiated poultry from a particular food chain. They should have a choice.
The government has assured me that there will be no health problems with food irradiation. However, I believe very strongly that we should label that part of the food so there would be a choice made by the consumer.
The recommendation in the report that more inspectors be hired is extremely important, again as it relates to food. We are responsible for the safety of our communities, and by constantly cutting the public service, the risk of having less inspectors is putting our communities at risk.
The previous speaker mentioned control of animal and plant disease. There were recommendations that we give early consideration to the introduction of amendments to the import control provisions of the plant quarantine and animal disease.
For example, in labour relations we need more training for inspectors. The committee was very concerned by the Auditor General's findings on employer-employee relations regarding the Food Inspection Branch.

Your Committee also noted the need to improve the training of food and plant inspectors at border stations. The Auditor General discovered, for example, that the veterinary technicians who perform the inspections do not receive thorough training in food science. The Department informed your Committee that it is allocating more resources for the technical training of inspectors and the further training of supervisors in surveillance techniques, which the Auditor General will mention in his follow-up report on this subject.

January 26, 1990
Routine Proceedings
It is therefore important for the government to have the good sense to limit the cuts in its next budget and to ensure that we have adequate inspection for the protection of consumers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The member for Saskatoon- Humboldt has the floor and may reply to the comment.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: The member for Carleton-Gloucester has expanded on one of the concerns that the committee had at that particular time. If he has an opportunity to debate a little later on, I would appreciate hearing his views.
Things have changed considerably. Fifteen years ago, you could bring a bird into Canada by taking it into an agricultural station and having them look at it and they would accept it into Canada if it looked healthy. We have come a long way from that time and it has been very necessary in order to protect the health of our animals and birds.
But the idea of food inspection at the border is something which has not been dealt with particularly well in the free trade agreement and is being used against us when we ship food to the States. We are much more lenient with food coming into Canada, although we had the case of cyanide in the grapes which caused a considerable to-do in the past. Those kinds of things are in the regulations, so there is a real necessity to review and look at the control of food coming into the country and of live animals and plants coming into the country as well.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The hon. member for Peace River.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Point of order. Point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the hon. member for Churchill.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the member for Kamloops be now heard.


Mr. Kempling:: That is not a point of order.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Yes, it is. It's the only way you can do it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The right hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think there is some question as to whether that point of order is receivable. I would ask the Chair to take it under advisement, to render a decision later this day or next week, and to allow the business of the House to proceed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will give the floor to the member for Kamloops.
The procedure in a matter such as this is the following, and if I am not right I am sure members will correct me. Two members stood at the same time, the member for Peace River and the member for Kamloops, and the Chair did recognize on debate the member for Peace River. The matter that the Chair has to take into consideration is whether the member for Peace River started his speech, even with one or two words. Once that is done, and if that is done before the member for Churchill seeks the floor on a point of order, then the member for Peace River has the floor.
In this particular case, the Chair heard the member for Churchill yell "point of order" shortly before the member for Peace River said "Mr. Speaker". That is the interpretation of the Chair. That is why I believe the motion is in order.
In defence, of course, of the member for Peace River, I must say it was probably a split second. The member for Peace River.


Albert Glen Cooper: I would claim that this is discrimination because of my height. My problem is that my voice, even though I know I began speaking before the hon. member for Churchill, did not project up to the ceiling and back down to the Chair in the same time. So, Mr. Speaker, this is discrimination. I was speaking. I should have the floor.


Rodney Edward Murphy: On the same point, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I am not that much taller, but since the microphones are below our heads, I would assume that he was actually closer to the microphone and that you had more chance to hear him.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
January 26, 1990


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to state for the record that the Liberals were in the House but, indeed, we did not want to participate in this little spat going on between the government and the NDP.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River.
Routine Proceedings


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, did you hear my voice this time? I have to be careful. I am doubly handicapped when it comes to the member for Churchill. First, I am shorter and second, I have more hair and I know it absorbs the sound. That is why my voice did not project toward the Chair. I am not going to make the same mistake this time.
I want to enter into this debate but I want to enter into the real debate. The real debate that we are talking about here has nothing to do with the report that my hon. friend referred to earlier. It is really about the childish games of the NDP continuing once again today instead of allowing us to get on with an issue that is very important.
Bill C-5 is very important to a very small group of people in Alberta, twelve men who work for a small railway. What did the NDP want to do? They want to play games. They brag to us constantly that they stand up for the little people. We know that is not true. We know, in fact, who pulls their strings and it is not the little people, especially little people like me. It is the unions of this country and, in fact, it is not even the union membership. It is the leadership. Whenever the phone rings, these guys rush out to make sure that it is not Bob White or Shirley Carr calling to know what the marching orders will be for the next few moments.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I must remind my colleague who was speaking and also members of the House that we will not tolerate this continuing sexist language. We are not all guys in this House. We are men and women parliamentarians.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I was only referring to the phone call and I assumed it would be the House Leader who would take the call. Therefore, I think "guy" does fit.
My point is that in fact what we have once again are New Democrats responding to the concerns of the union leadership in this land. We saw it demonstrated at their convention. We saw it demonstrated before Christmas because every time the phone rang-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I know this is a very partisan place and sometimes we make those comments but at some point I would hope that the hon. member would be relevant to the committee report.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I will be relevant and short. I will continue to be short.

January 26, 1990
Routine Proceedings
In fact, we are very concerned about Bill C-5. That is why this government called that issue today. That is why there has been co-operation to a certain degree between the Liberal Party and ourselves. We have agreed that because it is so important an issue it should be referred to a committee where the Liberals can make their point on that issue, where we can make our concerns known but the NDP would rather filibuster and fool around here in the House of Commons.
Therefore, while I am on my feet, I move:
That this House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
++NAYS
Anawak Benjamin Blackburn (Brant)
Catterall
Gauthier
Kilger (Stormont-Du ndas)
Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
MacDonald (Dartmouth)
Manley
Mitchell
Parker
Riis
Young (Gloucester)-25
Members
Bellemare
Black
Callbeck
Dionne
Hovdebo
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Maheu
Mifflin
Nault
Prud'homme
Samson


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Government Orders.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Before the debate on Bill C-5 continues, Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.
Two days ago, the Chair gave notice that it would look into the whole question of whether Bill C-62 imposing a regressive 7 per cent sales tax on Canadians-a bill based on a ways and means motion-is in order. The Chair told the House that it agreed to a recorded vote on first reading and that it would render a decision before second reading of this bill began.
We know that the government announced that on Monday, after oral question period, debate would begin on this bill imposing a 7 per cent goods and services tax on Canadians.
(Division No. 177)

Beatty
Bjomson
Bosley
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Chartrand
Cooper
Desjardins
Duplessis
Epp
Hockin
Jourdenais
Lopez
Mazankowski
Moore
O'Kurley
Plourde
Sparrow
Van de Walle
Weiner
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
Members
Belsher
Blais
Bourgault
Casey
Collins
de Cotret
Dick
Edwards
Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine)
Horning
Kempling
Marin
Merrithew
Oberle
Plamondon
Reid
Tardif
Vezina
Wilbee
Winegard-40
I ask the Chair to allow me to ask the government the following question: If the Chair decides that the bill is not in order, which is possible, can the government tell the House what bill it would have us consider in its place?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This may help the House. I am informed that the Speaker intends to make a ruling on the matter raised by the member for Ottawa-Vanier on 3 p.m. on Monday.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is my point, Mr. Speaker. There are two possibilities. It is either going to be correct for the House to proceed to second reading, or not correct.
January 26, 1990

I ask the Chair to allow me to ask the government the following question: If the Chair decides that the bill is not in order, which is possible, can the government tell the House what bill it would have us consider in its place?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This may help the House. I am informed that the Speaker intends to make a ruling on the matter raised by the member for Ottawa-Vanier on 3 p.m. on Monday.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is my point, Mr. Speaker. There are two possibilities. It is either going to be correct for the House to proceed to second reading, or not correct.
In the event that it is not correct. I am asking the government to tell us right now what the back-up legislation will be.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I am sure if the hon. member had listened carefully to the arguments as put forward by the Minister of Finance and myself yesterday, he would recognize that we are very confident that we will have an affirmative ruling and we certainly feel, after listening to those arguments, that they removed all shadow of doubt.
I can assure the hon. member that because we, as a government, are always prepared, we do have another bill, Bill C-52, which in that very, very unlikely event after those stunning arguments we do not have an affirmative ruling, we would be prepared to pick up that bill.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard (Roberval) that Bill C-5, an act to amend the Railway Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended today by 23 minutes.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I interrupted this morning at 11 a.m. when the member for Vancouver East asked a
Government Orders
question. The member for Regina-Lumsden was going to answer. I will allow the member for Vancouver East to summarize her question to the member for Regina- Lumsden.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, it was a while ago, but if I recall correctly, I was asking my colleague who had been speaking on this bill to explain some of the difficulties and some of the solutions to an improved and expanded railway system, particularly as it connects with the ports. I am thinking particularly of the Port of Vancouver and the necessity to compete with the American system which has such things as double decker trains and much more efficient services and, therefore, is causing shipments of grain and other things often to go through the American line, through the Port of Seattle and Tacoma, rather than through Vancouver.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. At 11 o'clock, she called me an expert, although she did not this time. But I do not want to be called that.
My hon. colleague is perfectly right. There must be a massive public investment in the infrastructure of railway lines not only in Vancouver, but in many other ports, such as the infrastructure in every city across Canada, whether it is rail line relocation, grade separations, overpasses or underpasses. If you are going to raise the clearances on railway lines into a port like Vancouver to allow for higher railway cars, you are looking at a lot of money. When you have to raise bridges or lower roadways, you are looking at a lot of investment.
Obviously, the private sector is not going to invest in that. It is like the streets, sidewalks, sewers, water systems and whatnot. If the government thought it could privatize those, it would, but nobody would buy them in a month of Sundays.
The same thing applies to something like the railway system, which is a public utility. You have to treat it that way. It is not an expense. It is an investment because, as my colleague intimated, Burlington Northern is now attracting plywood, grain, and a host of other products across the border from New Westminster or from Lethbridge, and hauling it on Burlington Northern and Conrail at the expense of the Canadian railway system. Because of things this government agrees with, like confidential contracts, faster tax write-offs for American railroads than Canadian railroads have, our railroads are working at a disadvantage.
The government is not about to invest in the kind of rail line improvements that have to take place. It is going to require further public investment. It is rebuilding and modernizing of a system that is 20 or 30 years out of date. It requires, I would estimate, something in the order of

January 26, 1990
Government Orders
$4 billion to $5 billion over the next 10 years to get it done.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter into debate on Bill C-5, an act to amend the Railway Act. All members realize that the purpose of this bill is to add a subsection to Section (6) of the Railway Act that allows a province to assume jurisdiction over the interprovincial rail lines.
I think it is appropriate that we recognize what is going on here today. I want to make it clear that the New Democratic Party is not in a position to stop this legislation from moving into committee. Nothing of the sort. We indicated that we wanted to discuss bills thoroughly and we look forward to getting this bill into committee at some point in time, and seeking the appropriate witnesses to respond to see if, in fact, this is the direction the Government of Canada ought to be taking. I mean that with all sincerity.
On the other hand, I think it is clear that what we are also doing as a result of this is sending a signal to the government. The Prime Minister, on many occasions, in reference to the goods and services tax indicated that he does not like this tax and the people of Canada do not like this tax, but it is the right thing to do.
I want to say, on behalf of my colleagues, that we do not enjoy the kinds of things that we have had to do in the last number of days. We do not enjoy frustrating the government at every turn. We do not enjoy making life miserable for the government in terms of its punitive agenda and so on, but it is the right thing to do and we have got to do it.
When 89 per cent of the people of Canada call us and ask us to do what we can to give them time to apply more pressure on the back-benchers on the Conservative side so that they can realize what this goods and services tax is going to do to them and to the country, we have an obligation to do just that.
I know that we have tried our best in the last few days to bring the government to its senses. We have tried to send a message to the government that at least this party is not going to co-operate with the government. In that tradition, I think it is only appropriate that I move:
That this House do now adjourn.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
It being 3.23 p.m. this House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3.23 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, January 29, 1990