1990-05-25

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre) moved:: That this House call upon the government to recognize that Canada's municipal infrastructure is facing a crisis of national proportions and that, given the serious implications to the nation's environment, economic prosperity and quality of life for Canadians, the government resume its traditional role as a partner with the provincial and municipal governments to address this national crisis.
He said: Madam Speaker, I want to thank our House leader for giving me the opportunity to speak on this very important issue today.
This issue has a tremendous impact on the cities, towns and villages which make up our country. Municipal infrastructure is not very glamorous, but it is absolutely vital to the health and vitality of our national environment and economy.
The motion we have tabled today calls upon the government to recognize this very simple, but extremely important fact. I would like to acknowledge at the very outset the tremendous work being done on this issue by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. We thank them for taking a leadership role and speaking out on behalf of Canadian towns and cities.
Their research and well-documented studies have enabled us to make sense out of a very complex issue.
I cannot think of a segment of our lives not touched on a daily basis by municipal infrastructure. When people ask what is infrastructure, I think that before we even arrive at work in the morning we have probably showered, flushed the toilet, used the water from the kitchen tap to make coffee, and driven on paved roadways to our job that would not exist if it were not for services provided by local infrastructure.
Whether we live in big cities or in small towns, infrastructure provides the basis for our homes, our jobs, our standard of living, and the maintenance of our own environment.
For many years we were able to take these services for granted, and we did. Government at all levels turned away from building bridges and repairing roads and concentrated on what some call soft infrastructure, such as social services which also have become an integral part of the Canadian way of life.
Now we have used up the extra capacity that was built into the infrastructure in the first half of this century. The sewers, roads, bridges and sidewalks can no longer cope with the ever-increasing demands.
Often discussion on this issue turns into debates on who is responsible. Time and energy are wasted as politicians argue back and forth accusing each other. What I would like to say today is that there is no longer any time to debate who is responsible. We must accept the fact that we have a national crisis on our hands, a crisis that requires national recognition and assistance. The municipalities simply cannot do it alone.
As a former alderman I learned a great deal about the challenges facing municipal government, and this past year as co-chairman of the National Liberal Task Force on Municipal Infrastructure I was able to witness first hand just how serious this situation is in our country.
My colleague from Nepean and I visited towns where raw sewage flowed down open ditches. We heard from villages where residents must import fresh water. For

May 25, 1990
Supply
example, on the east coast of this country we witnessed raw sewage being dumped directly into the ocean. A similar scene greeted us on the west coast.
Canadians along the Trans-Canada Highway reported ever-increasing accidents due to a badly deteriorating national road system. We heard from developers who are trying to fill a need for affordable housing but who are frustrated because of the inadequate infrastructure available to them.
In one municipality in New Brunswick we heard about an industrial park that was developed to promote economic development in this region where unemployment levels are reaching serious proportions. Unfortunately, so far the industrial park has no water supply. It is rather discouraging, Madam Speaker, for businesses that are thinking about locating there.

Since some of the oldest Canadian municipalities are in Quebec, it is not surprising that their infrastructure requirements are rapidly approaching a critical stage.
The dumping of sewage and untreated water into the St. Lawrence, which has gone on for centuries, has devastated this waterway that plays a vital role. According to the urban communities of Quebec, 500 million litres of untreated water and 50 metric tons of raw sewage are dumped into the river every day. Madam Speaker, that is as much as three times the capacity of the Quebec coliseum or the contents of 15,000 garbage trucks.
Besides this environmental nightmare, many municipalities located along the highways leading to the rural recreation areas of the province in the Laurentians and the Ottawa Valley say that they fear the influx of non-residents will contribute to the deterioration of roads and local services. These municipalities, which do not have the increased revenues of the tourist centres, must still absorb additional costs due to their proximity to these resorts.

Obviously, Madam Speaker, municipal needs are no longer a subject for discussion only at town council meetings. It has come up time and time again at environmental conferences, at the board tables of corporations, in housing reports, and in transportation studies.
How does municipal infrastructure affect us on a national level?
Let us look for a moment at the issues before us today at the national level: first, a growing concern about the environment; second, real fears about the economy and our ability to compete in tough international markets; third, a monumental national debt and increases in inflation, interest rates, and unemployment levels; and, fourth, serious regional economic development and serious regional economic disparities which limit employment opportunities and force the migration of Canadians away from their homes and into already crowded urban centres simply to make a living.
It is my firm belief that in the middle of these issues and central both to the cause and their cure is the urgent need to rebuild and upgrade Canada's municipal infrastructure.
I would first like to outline the relationship between the environment and the municipal infrastructure. Canadians have ranked the environment as their top priority for federal action. The growing concern about the mistreatment of our greatest national resource, our environment, has prompted a wide variety of action on the part of all levels of government.
Canadians want us to save our waterways. They want us to stop polluting our land and our air. They want an assurance that their governments at all levels are safeguarding the inheritance of their children by following policies based on sustainable development. However, a quick look at some of the basic facts tell us pretty quickly that this is not what we are doing at all.
For example, Environment Canada figures tell us that only 10 per cent of all raw sewage east of Ontario goes through a treatment process. We also know that more than 8 million Canadians or one-third of our population live in municipalities without sewage treatment.
In Newfoundland, for example, over 48,000 homes do not have adequate water or sewer services, and 80 per cent of the population does not have properly treated drinking water.
In Toronto, as another example, the water quality is so bad that some politicians are calling for a $200 million pipeline from Georgian Bay.
Canadians are spending millions of dollars every year on bottled water, which is not surprising when we stop to consider that in many parts of Canada eating fish caught
May 25, 1990

in lakes and rivers which are sources of drinking water is actually dangerous to human health.
In my riding of Ottawa Centre and across this country beaches are being closed because of unsafe levels of pollution. We are surrounded by water and yet told that we cannot swim in it or eat the fish. Our children are growing up in a world very different from the one we knew. Unfortunately, the environmental damage caused by municipal infrastructure is not limited to our waterways. The deplorable condition of the Trans-Canada Highway and a vast number of provincial and municipal roads is also hurting our environment.
We know carbon dioxide emissions hurt our air quality and contribute to global warming, and we recognize this as a national and international problem. We have unfortunately failed to make the connection between bad roads and air pollution, but the Canadian Automobile Association has made that connection. It estimates that 10.3 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions come from automobile travel. Travelling roads in poor condition uses more fuel than when roads are properly maintained and results in higher levels of emissions.
In Ontario, for example, vehicle registrations have risen by 85 per cent. Yet, using the province's own standards, as many as 50 per cent of the roads these cars are using will soon be listed in fair to poor condition.
The severe cut-backs to VIA Rail passenger service has also dealt a blow to the environment. By forcing more Canadians into individual cars, which must then travel over poorly maintained roads, we are increasing the environmental damage across the country.
There is also an international dimension to the dilemma. Canada and the United States have signed treaties regarding the maintenance of the water quality of the Great Lakes and other waterways. The deterioration of our infrastructure and our incapacity to treat sewage might affect our ability to meet these international environmental obligations.
Obviously any attention to address and halt the damage being done to our environment on a daily basis must include provisions to upgrade and enhance our infrastructure. If we are to turn to the economic aspect of
Supply
municipal infrastructure, and if we are to survive in an increasingly challenging market-place of the next decade and the next century-and I must say that we should be trying not only to survive as a nation but to succeed-it is vital that we become more productive and more efficient as well.
I do not have to spend much time telling members in this House what changing markets and increased competition are costing our regions dependent upon the fisheries, the forests, and/or the steel industry.
If we want to ensure that Canadians, no matter where they live in this country, maintain a certain standard of living and opportunity for employment, we will have to adapt and attract an increasingly selective private sector, but we know already this is not happening.
The hearings we held in large and small municipalities across Canada revealed that opportunities are being lost due to inadequate roads, poor industrial infrastructure, and a lack of services for residential areas. If there are no roads to get workers to the factories, it follows that there will be no factories and no jobs for communities that are searching for new economic development.
I give the example of the United States which has been playing a leadership role in the field of infrastructure. The United States has already taken action on the problem, largely as a result of a report prepared by the National Council on Public Works. The report, presented to the U.S. Congress in 1988, indicated that inadequate infrastructure decreases productivity because private industry must then use its resources and labour to compensate for non-existent or inadequate public infrastructure.
Basically this means that firms compensate by using more capital and labour to produce the same output. What we must learn and learn quickly is that money spent on building or renewing infrastructure is money well spent. I am sure the government shares our concern that wasting money is no longer an option at any level of government.
Studies show that infrastructure may be the factor responsible for a community's demise, or it may be the very element that revitalizes that community. Money spent on municipal infrastructure brings with it a multiplier effect. It results in increased economic activity and higher levels of employment and returns revenues to all

May 25, 1990
Supply
levels of government in the form of direct or indirect taxes and fewer claims on income assistance programs.
In fact a study done by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in January 1988 showed that a $5 billion investment by each of the municipal, provincial and federal governments would go a long way toward resolving the infrastructure crisis and would create 314,000 jobs. The study estimated that the net cost to the federal government at approximately $416 million was a cost largely due to high interest rates.
It makes sense because not only would municipal infrastructure work be done by Canadians, but the bulk of the required materials could be produced in Canada. These are the short-term benefits. In the long-term Canada's infrastructure, now healthy and expanded to meet the needs of a growing diversified economy, would provide the jobs, homes, and standard of living Canadians have come to expect and deserve no matter where they live.
As well, the various levels of government would benefit from the increased economic base and the decreased number of citizens depending upon government assistance and the advantage of having a modern, competitive workforce and business sector.
Let us turn to the other compelling reason the federal government should become a partner at the municipal and provincial levels. The government has repeatedly refused to help in telling the municipalities that they should increase their water rates to cover the costs of repairing infrastructure such as sewers and roads. Unfortunately, while in need of revision water rates alone are not going to resolve the problem.
Transportation experts in the FCM have also called on the federal government to use some of its revenues collected through taxes on gasoline and fuels to upgrade our neglected roads system. Once again, this only makes sense, yet the federal government refuses to accept its fair share of the responsibility for maintaining and expanding municipal infrastructure. The hardest part of it all is that in the mid-1980s the federal government was a major contributor to the enhancement of the Regina drinking water supply system.
Right now, the government is involved in a multimillion dollar project in Halifax to install sewage treatment facilities. As well, the federal government made a major
commitment during the 1988 election to take part in the clean-up of the St. Lawrence River, which in my view are commendable initiatives. The federal government has to be committed to those initiatives. We have to carry on and meet the rest of the commitment.
Time might be bad. Perhaps the government thinks that with the serious situation facing Canada the infrastructure problem is a temporary one which it will go away. If we listen to the mayors, the reeves, or the natives across our country we learn quickly that this crisis will require the co-operation of all levels of government: everybody. We are all responsible without exception.
By resuming its traditional role with the provincial and municipal governments, the federal government can ensure that no matter where we live in Canada we will have access to clean water and safe roads.
In summary, if we look at municipal infrastructure as a local, isolated problem which each municipal government must handle alone, we have failed to see the bigger picture.


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Madam Speaker, I was most interested in the hon. member's comments with respect to the concerns he voiced about developers having a difficult time in providing affordable housing because of the lack of municipal infrastructure.
Also, he made comments with respect to the concerns that the road systems for commuting to the factories and the workplaces were not there, were in bad shape, or potentially would be getting into better shape.
Certainly I am well aware of that and everyone in this country is well aware of that. We are also aware, as are the developers and the hon. member, of the financial difficulties facing the country at the moment and the fact that Canadians are not interested in seeing their taxes raised. They are interested in seeing expenditures cut.
In the discussions of the task force, I wonder if the hon. member and other members of the task force investigated the situation of using the existing infrastructure more intensively, which is not all that bad a condition in most cases.
In fact, Madam Speaker, as you and I are aware there used to be a time when every house in this country had at least five people in it. Today, there is more like two or
May 25, 1990

three people in it. The infrastructure that was built, that is the roads, the sewers, the schools and the public transportation systems, was to accommodate five or more people in a house are now accommodating only two or three people in a house. The infrastructure is there to accommodate a much greater number of people if there was an intensification of the use of the available land resources.
This is something that lies within the control of municipalities. I hope the hon. member pointed it out to the municipalities and developers. The developers are well aware of the fact and are looking forward to the opportunity to use the existing infrastructure more intensively. I hope that the hon. member, in his task force, pointed that out to the municipalities. I would urge him, if he did not, to urge the municipalities, as he has said, to co-operate with other levels of the government, use the tools at their command to be helpful to solve this problem rather than just looking to the taxpayers of Canada for more and more money.


Mac Harb: That is the most interesting comment I have heard in a long time. We are dealing with areas where they do not have infrastructure. I do not understand how the minister wants me to tell a place like Halifax or like St. John's, Newfoundland to use the existing infrastructure for sewage when the only infrastructure they have to put their sewage in is the ocean. There is no infrastructure. There are no treatment facilities. There is no sewage system in place, period.
We are also talking about towns where roads are almost non-existent. We are not dealing with municipalities or with towns where there are existing infrastructures and we can go to those towns and ask them to use those existing facilities.


Alan Redway: The FCM report dealt with all those issues.


Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, he is talking about the FCM. I would suggest that the hon. minister should make a trip to Atlantic Canada. Perhaps he should go to Fredericton, Sydney in Nova Scotia, and St. John's, Newfoundland. He should go to those different parts of Canada and to the Northwest Territories and have a look at the infrastructure and come back to this House and
Supply
stand up without blushing and tell the members of this House that they do have infrastructure.
What I saw across Canada, in the Atlantic as well as in western Canada is unbelievable. In this day and age in a society like the one we live in, still we do not enjoy the proper quality of water that we should be enjoying. We still do not have access to the kind of facilities we need. We still do not have infrastructure in places where we talk about protecting the environment and taking a leadership role on the environmental aspect. Yet we pollute. We are great polluters in western Canada and also in Atlantic Canada and it is our responsibility as a federal government to step in right now and help them out.
There is raw sewage being dumped into the oceans because there are no facilities.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Madam Speaker, it is easy to be critical of the government and I am prepared to do that, but one really has to question the credibility of the Liberal Party on this particular issue since in their years in government they were the ones that began the cut-back on this particular program of the federal involvement with the municipalities. In March 1984 they cut it out completely.


Mr. Gauthier:: Nonsense. We put it into place.


Steve Butland: So this task force that the Liberals enacted was an act of hypocrisy, extremely cynical and I would ask the member to defend what he was doing with this task force.


Mac Harb: I am amazed, but then again when the criticism comes from colleagues to the left, we sort of understand that it is a sunny day outside and I guess that-


Mrs. Gaffney:: He is light-headed.


Mac Harb: The hon. member forgets that the vast majority, if not every program that we have enjoyed up until 1984 was a program that was put in place by a federal Liberal government.
I am amazed that the hon. member would stand up when I already have over 18 pages prepared which specifically outline that it is time for us as federal politicians to stop arguing with one another, face the reality, acknowledge that there is a problem, stop passing

May 25, 1990
Supply
the blame and let us do something constructive for our country and our land.
In this House there are approximately 60 former municipal politicians, whether they were aldermen or mayors. I would ask every one of them to stand up in this House and tell me that while he or she was a mayor or alderman he or she did not promise people to act on issues of that magnitude, did not promise the town or municipality to stand up and defend infrastructure and the needs of the constituency.
We all brag about the environment. We all go back to our constituencies and talk about protecting the environment. Yet we are contributing to the pollution of our beaches and our rivers by not acting now. We are guilty by association. We are guilty by not acknowledging the problem and acting on it.
The hon. member knows, and I have a lot of respect for him, that it is time for action. We have to stop bragging and stop passing on the blame to different people. We have to act now.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In recognizing the next speaker for questions and comments, I wish to assure him that I have done my homework and will do my best, as he asked, to pronounce the name of his riding correctly. The hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester (Mr. Bellemare) has the floor.
Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton

Gloucester): You
are making great progress, Madam Speaker.
I was horrified to hear what the Minister of State for Housing (Mr. Redway) said.

I would like to congratulate the members for Nepean and Ottawa Centre for organizing this task force on infrastructure across Canada. I also appreciate having been involved in these activities and having been permitted to help organize the Ottawa area task force.
I am really shocked at what the housing minister said, especially since I know that the philosophy of the Conservative government is that of user pay.
As a former member of the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Council, and a former member of the City of Gloucester Council, and a member of the FCM, as the
Minister of Public Works knows well, this government is freeloading in the area.
There is a filtration plant being built and local taxpayers, industries and businesses are the ones paying for it. The federal government, which is at least a one-third user, is not paying one cent. There is the Green Creek pollution control centre. Every time the federal building people and parliamentarians use the washroom, they are freeloading. They are not paying their fair share. They are not contributing a penny.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Bellemare:: They will tell you that they give grants in lieu of money. Look at them, they are in a panic. They do not contribute a single penny. They talk about grants to municipalities. They give money to the city of Ottawa as an individual, the City of Gloucester, the City of Nepean, but nothing to the regional government. The regional government is the body that pays and taxes for all the infrastructure. You are a bunch of free-loaders on the local taxpayers.
I would suggest to the regional-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired. He may want to let his colleague-


Eugène Bellemare: I am just waiting for the next speaker to stand up.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: That is the hon. member's right, of course. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre on a short comment.


Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, that is the kind of frustration we are seeing right across the land from people who have seen firsthand what is happening in the area of infrastructure.
The hon. member has a facility in his riding which is going to cost the taxpayers approximately $500 million to bring it up to date. There was a discussion about making a commitment on it.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate.


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Labour and Minister of State (Transport)):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in today's debate on municipal infrastructure, on behalf of the government and on my own behalf. I believe a number of members in the House this morning are familiar with my own involvement in
May 25, 1990

this question. For 16 years, prior to my election to the House of Commons in November 1988,1 was mayor of a municipality in the Montreal area, and I also took a very active part in the proceedings of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities, both as a member of the board and as President of the Federation. The subject is therefore one that has interested me for some time. Like many members in this House, the subject is of particular interest to me because Canadians live in the towns and villages of this country. All members of this House live in urban or rural communities, with or without infrastructures.
I would like to point out for the benefit of all members that it is not enough to observe that a problem exists and then ask the federal government to take the responsibility for that problem, without considering other circumstances that exist as well.
I think we should realize that the first problem we face in this respect, although not the most serious one, is a very real problem: the jurisdiction of municipal matters lies with the provinces. That is something the federal government must bear in mind. In all negotiations that have taken place over the years on the issue of municipal infrastructure, the provincial governments had to be involved. Today, I can say we have never seen provincial governments rushing to get involved in an issue that by its very nature is first of all a matter of local jurisdiction.
Between 1960 and 1980, the government at the time had gotten into the habit of playing Santa Claus right and left in order to be re-elected, something it managed very successfully for a number of years.

Unfortunately for us and our children, during that 20 year period while the Liberal government of the day was trying to play Santa Claus to everybody, this country accumulated a national debt that is now at the $350 billion level.
In 1984 when this government took office, the annual operating deficit of the government of the day was $16 billion. In other words, the government of the day could not meet its operating expenses. It had to borrow $16 billion a year just to pay the grocery bills.
Supply
In the current year, this government, through serious administration and by making difficult decisions, unpopular decisions we all agree, had the courage of assuming our responsibility and-


Eugène Bellemare: And doubling the debt.


Jean Corbeil: We had to double the debt that was left to us by the previous government, because unfortunately we have to pay the interest on the loan that was accumulated at the time, and 80 per cent of the additional deficit between 1984 and now is due to the deficit that was left to us by the previous government.
From an operating deficit of $16 billion in 1984, this government, through very unpopular decisions that had to be taken for the best interests of Canadians, has turned the situation around. In the current year, we have now an operating surplus of $9 billion. This means a turnaround of $25 billion in a short period of six years.
This is very well explained by the fact that while they were in power, the expenses of the previous government increased every year by 13.9 per cent. This may sound incredible to the Canadian population watching us today on television. But yes, that government had the nerve to increase its expenses by 13.9 per cent every year, accumulating a deficit that we have been paying since taking office, again through unpopular measures that had to be taken in the best interests of Canadians, and our children and grandchildren.
This government reduced the rate of additional expenses every year. It is now 3.5 per cent compared to the 13.9 per cent that we experienced during the term of the Liberal Party.
Therefore, having decided that we would attack the deficit which is the number one priority, it is no surprise that we had to determine that we were going to assume the expenses of our jurisdictions.


Mr. Milliken:: And do nothing else.


Jean Corbeil: If we do nothing else than bring back the finances of the country to a profitable level where Canadians will be able to compete with the rest of the world and will attain a competitive level where we can bring back prosperity to the country, I think that the present generation and future generations will be forever thankful to this government.

May 25, 1990
Supply


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: You are driving us into a recession instead.


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, in 1980, the previous government, which had been accumulating this kind of increases to the tune of 13.9 per cent annually, decided it was time to do something, and it terminated a program it had established in 1960 because, I assume, it realized that this was not the right way to go about it. So it terminated the program that existed at that time. Obviously, four years later when this government took over the reins of power, we were not about to resume spending in an area that clearly did not lie within our jurisdiction.
We acted responsibly, as the federal authority, by cutting spending and introducing measures that were not popular, because we felt responsible to the citizens of this country.
Earlier, Madam Speaker, I was astonished to hear the first speaker introduce an element in this debate that municipalities have not even had on their shopping list for the past few years, and that is responsibility installing new infrastructures. The whole infrastructure dossier prepared by the Canadian Federation of Municipalities has always focussed on repairs and upgrading of municipal infrastuctures. I am surprised the previous speaker decided to break new ground in an area that is even further removed from the federal government's jurisdiction.
Madam Speaker, if our sole concern was to be popular and to get re-elected, we could keep saying yes to all demands, including some very legitimate ones, that are not our jurisdiction, just to please Canadians for a time. However, I do not think this is what a responsible government should do. A responsible government should, especially in times as difficult as these, be concerned about reducing a monstrous deficit that might otherwise put Canada in a situation that would be unacceptable to our children and our great-grandchildren.
The figures I mentioned earlier, Madam Speaker, and there are any number of statistics on the subject, showed that we are past the stage where we could spend, spend, spend, and hang the consequences. The present deficit, our national debt of $350 billion, is costing this country $40 billion annually in interest alone, nearly one-third of the federal budget.
We are now in a period of budgetary restraint which again forces us to make difficult choices to ensure this country's prosperity. We realize that municipalities, provinces, towns, school boards in fact, everyone has problems. The fact is that in this country, each level of government has specific responsibilities, and each level of government is responsible for deciding where it wants to spend its money. When we look at the budgets and financial situations of the provinces in this country, it is clear that financially, each of these governments is in a far more enviable position than this government, and therefore they are in a position to discharge their responsibilities with respect to municipal jurisdictions and to share these with the municipalities which are also in a pretty healthy financial position.
We are not ignoring a dossier that over the years has been built up by the Canadian Federation of Municipalities and which has shown there are specific problems across the country. However, with my experience of this dossier, I can say that there are considerable differences of opinion between the various municipalities on the way a program should be defined. There are wide differences of opinion between the provinces because in some regions of this country, in some cities and some provinces, the strategy used over the years has allowed them-those cities and provinces-to spend more money on renewing their infrastructure, and now, they are not very pleased with the prospect that other cities and provinces that did not apply this strategy will now enjoy the government's largesse.
Madam Speaker, I think everyone in this country realizes that we have a situation that bears looking into, but the bottom line-

The bottom line is that the federal government has to attack its deficit. That is its number one priority. Once the deficit has been taken care of, then the federal government can look at other ways of spending the taxpayers' money.


Beryl Gaffney: Madam Speaker, I am slightly shocked and very surprised. I know the member across the way well, but I forget the name of his riding in the Montreal area. He and I both sat on the board of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I recall those days when he was the one who was here meeting with the federal government and trying to dredge more money out of it because of the seriousness of the situation of
May 25, 1990

infrastructure right across the country. Now, because the member is on the government side of the House, we are hearing a different story. I find that absolutely appalling.
I would like to quote from the remarks of the present President of the FCM at a meeting in Edmonton in February, 1989, where he stated:
And during the 1988 election campaign, a major commitment was made to clean up 1he St. Lawrence River, a commitment which can only be met if significant funds are made available for the improvement and installation of sewage treatment facilities throughout 1he St. Lawrence Valley.
Thus, on the national platform, the government has maintained only opposition to our suggestions while in the context of regional announcements, it has committed to substantial and useful contributions as I have just outlined-A healthy beginning in the infrastructure dialogue would be for the federal government to acknowledge that it is already a financial contributor to Canada's municipal needs, and will undoubtedly continue to be so-
But why does it have to do it on an ad hoc basis? I would like the member to respond to that.


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comments and I would be very glad to answer the question. It demonstrates that the government is open to examining some specific problems-


Beryl Gaffney: Only under patronage circumstances.


Jean Corbeil: -when the present government is asked by the provincial authorities and the municipal authorities to look at a specific problem. Under regional economic development programs, worker's information programs, and other programs of this nature, we have invested lots of money over the years and we are prepared to do so.
However, I want to emphasize to the member across the way that surely she must realize that the country is in a very serious financial situation. I do not renege on anything that I have done or said in previous years, but at the present time the first priority of the government and the country has to be to reduce the deficit. If we do not do so, there will not be a Canada at the turn of the century.
Supply


Mr. Jim KarpofT (Surrey North):: Madam Speaker, I come from an area that is one of the fastest growing areas in Canada and that is Surrey North.
We are in severe trouble because of the lack of municipal infrastructure. We have 9,000 children in portable schools. We do not have money to develop adequate sewers, roads, sidewalks, parks, and recreation facilities. We have had to send out notices to parents to say that they cannot put their children into minor league ball, sports, and athletic activities because we do not have a base to raise the dollars to put in those types of services. There have been discussions that we are $282 million behind our ability to meet the basic infrastructure necessary for a viable community.
Our community has very little industry and commerce. It is a residential community. It does not have the tax base.
Why does the hon. member feel that the federal government has no responsibility to those types of communities and the families in those communities?
Second, if the government is so worried about the deficit, why did it allow the interest rates to go up yesterday to over 14 per cent?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member will certainly agree with me that the responsibility of all elected people at all levels is to manage the local affairs and assume the responsibilities for the decisions that are taken for the local authorities.
I repeat that this government has a national debt of $350 billion. It is costing Canadian taxpayers $40 billion annually in interest payments alone. The priority of the government is to look after that deficit within its own jurisdiction before looking at other problems in other jurisdictions because, if we do not attack the problem of that deficit, there will not be a Canada in a few years and we will not have the money to do anything which is under our direct jurisdiction.


Eugène Bellemare: Madam Speaker, I am really entertained by the minister, entertained by his white complexion and his wiping the sweat from his brow.

May 25, 1990
I remember the same minister sitting with me at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities at many conventions when we were both representatives of our municipalities. I will take up one of his themes:

repairs, infrastructures, local responsibility-

If that is the case, I refer to the Ottawa-Carleton area where there is over $1 billion in repairs going on. The basic theme of your government is "user pay". The taxpayers of this area are paying. The individual taxpayers are paying. The merchant taxpayers are paying. The industrial taxpayers are paying. But there is one freeloader, and you are the one who is freeloading. You are not paying your fair share.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member will want to continue after Question Period.

It being eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Members' Statements pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Terry Clifford (London -Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, I am proud to announce in the House today an environmental initiative launched by a family in my riding of London-Middlesex.
Called "A Human Race Towards A Healthy Planet", the Stephens family has launched a trans-Canada bicycle expedition to raise environmental awareness and to encourage students and families world-wide to adopt positive action and attitude towards a healthy planet.
David and Andrew Stephens are doing the cycling with the rest of the family in support. They started out on May 1 from Victoria, B.C. and this Sunday they will be in my riding of London-Middlesex on their way to St. John's, Newfoundland for Canada's birthday, July 1.
David Stephens is a young Canadian who believes that actions speak louder than words. His actions tell all of us that a healthy planet starts with one person's commitment to make a difference.
The Stephens' human race towards a healthy planet shows how one family, when committed to a cause and working together, can make a difference. Their focus is on working together for a positive cause. Their example to the families of Canada is simple; let's work together to make one healthy, happy country from sea to sea. We should congratulate their efforts.


LITHUANIA
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, "Please extend your hands and hearts toward Lithuania", plead the President of the Lithuanian Medical Association and the Minister of Health as they call for urgent medical assistance.
The economic blockade imposed by Moscow on Lithuania has severed basic medical services and supplies to that republic. Doctors are concentrating on emergency cases only and stocks of essential medications and surgical supplies, such as insulin, antibiotics, gloves, and intravenous sets, are being critically depleted.
The health minister has predicted that the rate of infectious diseases would increase, performance of essential surgical operations would be hindered and deaths otherwise preventable would become an eventuality.
I urge this government to respond to the plea of Lithuanians, to bring their cause to the attention of President Gorbachev when he and our Prime Minister meet next week, and to obtain Mr. Gorbachev's commitment that he will ensure the medical safety of every Lithuanian man, woman and child. We have faith in Mr. Gorbachev and therefore trust in his continuing good will.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, in 1976 I first raised the issue of the impact of industrial pollution on the respiratory systems of Canadians. For a number of years I argued that sulphur dioxide emissions were directly related to the higher
May 25, 1990

than normal rate of respiratory infections and lung cancers in the residents of Thunder Bay.
Today, 14 years later, a study conducted by 11 Canadian and American Lung Association scientists clearly states that acid air can damage human lungs as badly as acid rain damages forests, lakes and trees. It also states that acid aerosols are increasing bronchitis, asthma and deaths from respiratory failure.
The federal and provincial governments should act immediately on this very serious matter. They should act by establishing monitoring devices and reporting daily to the residents of smokestack communities. They should work harder to eliminate the pollutants themselves, and they should continue to conduct studies to ensure that we have a full understanding of the impact of this chemical on the well-being of Canadians.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland -Colchester):: Madam Speaker, up until a few days ago, the people in my riding could not take the current constitutional question too seriously. However, recent developments have brought this situation to the forefront of every conversation.
Still the question often is, why does Quebec want so much? The answer is simple, they do not.
Since arriving here 18 months ago, I have gotten to know Quebecers for the very first time. The Quebec members that I now know are teachers and business people, mayors and journalists, mechanics, engineers, doctors and pharmacists, just like home. All they really want is to keep their way of life and culture, just as we in Atlantic Canada want to keep our unique culture.
There is a great deal of concern and speculation throughout the country about our future, and it is up to all parliamentarians, legislators and our leaders to bring this country together, because if we do not, none of us will be able to keep our way of life and all of our unique cultures in Canada.


KASHMIR
Beryl Gaffney: Madam Speaker, I wish to alert the House to the serious potential danger to international peace and security posed by the current
escalation in the dispute between India and Pakistan over the status of Kashmir.
This dispute has existed since India and Pakistan became independent in 1947. The two countries have fought a war over the region twice, in 1948 and again in 1965. Hundreds of people, including many civilians, have been killed in recent clashes that threaten to erupt into a third war.
In 1948 Canada, as a member of the United Nations Security Council, was instrumental in stopping the war between India and Pakistan over Kashmir.
It is time for Canada to act again. We should use our current place in the Security Council to increase international pressure on the two sides to affirm their commitment to the 1965 ceasefire, withdraw military forces from the ceasefire line, desist from indiscriminate violence against civilians and negotiate peaceful solutions to the conflict. Canada should encourage the UN Secretary General to offer his good offices to achieve a just and lasting settlement. The international community should act now before it is too late.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, in the fall in 1959 I left my home in Alberta to study at a university in Montana. While attending Montana State University, I became familiar with the frequent discussions about a proposed amendment to the American Constitution.
Today, as I address this House, the American public is again engaged in yet another consideration for a constitutional amendment to their Constitution. Since the Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1787, there has been a total of 26 amendments.
Clearly, what some Canadian premiers must come to understand is that it is not a requirement for Canada to construct a constitution that resolves all issues in all situations for all time at one moment. What is required is the building of an agreement by which the procedures for change are known and agreed upon. Thereafter, the first ministers will be able to meet the challenges of an unforeseen future.
Had the Fathers of Confederation applied the standards of perfection that are being imposed by some

May 25, 1990
premiers today, the British North America Act of 1867 never could have been written. What is required now-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I apologize. The hon. member's time is now over. The hon. member for Dartmouth.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Madam Speaker, I rise today on an extremely serious matter, that is the escalation of tensions in the truckers' blockade.
Contrary to news reports this morning, the truckers have not left their blockade, quite simply because they do not believe this government when it says it will review their concerns. Indeed, I have just received a call from the president of a trucking firm who said that when one of his rigs tried to pull out of the line-up this morning, the driver was threatened by a shotgun-toting individual and told to pull back in the line or else. This incident occurred only a few hours ago at a Quebec border crossing.
The time to address the issues which have caused this blockade is now. This government has procrastinated and failed to acknowledge the inequities between the Canadian and American truckers until there were blockades set up at border crossings throughout eastern Canada.
I implore this government to take action today to resolve these inequities. I would certainly hope that we do not have to wait until there is further escalation, violence and even injury, before this government acts to ensure the competitiveness of the essential Canadian trucking industry.


THE STANLEY CUP
Mr. Willie Littlechild (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, Mr. Pocklington said last night, "Alberta demands champions". The Wetaskiwin Relics recently won a COHA World Cup tournament in San Diego. Now, for the fifth time in seven years, the Edmonton Oilers have won the Stanley Cup.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Wilton (Willie) Littlechild: I was going to ask the House to join me in congratulating the management, Mr. Sather, Mr. Pocklington and others such as the coaching staff of Messrs. Muckier, Green and Low, and in particular, all the families and players of the Oilers hockey club for their victory. Congratulations as well to Mr. Bill Ranford in winning the Conn Smythe Trophy.
Once again it shows all Canadians across the country that if you set your goals high and believe in yourself, you can accomplish and succeed in anything you do.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, Eurasian milfoil, an aquatic weed that has choked many of the lakes and rivers in the B.C. interior has defeated all efforts to control its spread.
Mechanical harvesting, while able to slow the growth of the weed, is unable to eradicate it. The weed is affecting the recreational and tourism potential of B.C.'s interior lakes.
Municipal and provincial governments have called for federal assistance to control this aquatic weed. It is therefore most disappointing to learn that Eurasian milfoil is not being researched for biological control by Agriculture Canada.
The Okanagan Basin Water Board has appealed to the Minister of Agriculture to get directly involved in developing the long-term biological controls necessary to preserve the resource value of the Okanagan Valley. Nothing has been done.
It is absolutely essential that the Minister of Agriculture make a strong commitment to research ways of eradicating Eurasian milfoil before the environmental impact of its uncontrolled growth gets completely out of hand.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Madam Speaker, Loran-C is a very reasonably priced, helpful aid for private pilots in Canada. It is an aid to navigation that provides distance measuring equipment, indications of speed, headings and also information on airports in a region where a person is flying.
May 25, 1990

At the moment, Loran-C is available to the maritime regions of Canada and to parts of Quebec and Ontario, but it is not available with any degree of accuracy on the prairies.
I would encourage the Minister of Transport to take a very close look at Loran-C and provide an option of having this navigation system available to private and general aviation pilots throughout the prairie regions. It provides safety, a large degree of accuracy and would be very much appreciated by the private pilots of Canada.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Madam Speaker, it is becoming increasingly urgent for the First Ministers of Canada to find an acceptable and equitable solution to the current constitutional impasse. We are witnessing daily reports in the media on this issue which could have very serious consequences for the country.
The Meech Lake debate has caused a number of unfortunate events to occur throughout the country that do not reflect the wishes of a majority of Canadians who desire to have a united Canada.
We live in a great country built on the efforts of two founding peoples, and with the contribution made by people who came to Canada from other lands. Some of these people knew firsthand the terrible face of internal strife, political instability and economic chaos. Together with English and French speaking Canadians, and with the aboriginal peoples of Canada who recognized the beauty and potential of the land, we have built a country which we are all proud to call home.
We are indeed fortunate, and we all have an interest in working towards a better tomorrow for our country and for our children.



Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Madam Speaker, today Albertans are proud to salute our Premier Don Getty for his leadership in support of the Meech Lake Accord.
Premier Getty's constructive proposal to pass Meech Lake now and adopt a list of principles to be discussed during a set period of time is a constructive proposal.
As the Prime Minister said yesterday: "Don Getty put the signature of the Government of Alberta on a piece of paper which was designed in Alberta's interest, in the interests of western Canada and, most of all, in the interests of a united Canada."
Premier Getty said: "I propose to honour the accord because it is indispensable that we all do so in the interests of Canadian unity."


CANADA POST
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, Canada Post is at it again. This time the victim is the Vars post office in my riding.
Last fall, residents of Vars heard a rumour and reacted swiftly by signing a petition against the closure of their post office. Some 374 residents, more than half of the community, signed the petition which I tabled in this House on December 8, 1989.
Vars is a growing community and even Canada Post admits as much. Yet the residents of Vars have just been "consulted" and their post office will be closing this summer.
These closures of post offices against the will of the people are done in the name of expenditure reduction, even if an outlet is profitable.
On behalf of the residents of Vars, I urge the minister to tell us today that he will instruct his officials to keep the Vars post office open.


HOUSING
James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Speaker, the housing crisis in Canada continues to worsen. The Canadian Homebuilders' Association has documented that, because of high interest rates, half the first-time home buyers have been forced out of the market. Residential construction activity in the first four months of 1990 is down. In April, the applications for residential building permits decreased.
What is the government's response to the growing crisis in housing? The Minister of State for Housing has told the mayor of Vancouver that he has no funds available to assist in developing affordable housing. Now

May 25, 1990
Oral Questions
the government has dealt another blow by increasing the bank rate to over 14 per cent. This can only have a devastating effect on an already bleak housing market. It appears that this government wishes not only to bring the housing industry to its knees, but it wishes to knock it flat on its back.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my constituents of Halifax who are fearful. Haligonians, indeed all Nova Scotians, are fiercely devoted to Canada. From its founding in 1749 through pre-Confederation battles, the birth of our nation in 1867, two World Wars, and up to the present, the Warden of the North and its people have believed steadfastly in this country and its future.
To us a Canada without the francophone fact, without Quebec, is unthinkable. We have so little time but we must ensure that Canada, worth so much, is not allowed to wither.

We have 29 days left to resolve the constitutional impasse. We must find solutions for our own benefit but also for our children, who have a right to inherit this beautiful, vast country of ours that is Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
The blockage of border crossings this week by hundreds of angry Canadian truckers has brought home to Canadians just how important the trucking industry is for our economy. It has also brought home to Canadians just how harmful and ill considered it was for this government to put into effect full deregulation of the trucking industry without first being sure that American truckers have to live by the same rules of this country as Canadians. In fact thousands of jobs have been lost in
Ontario in the trucking industry since this deregulation went into effect. I understand that the blockages have eased at certain border points like Windsor but are continuing at other border points.
One of the issues of concern to Canadian truckers is the issue of cabotage, the picking up and unloading of cargoes within Canada by Americans. Has the government begun enforcing our already existing laws against cabotage and, if not, could the minister tell us exactly when the government will begin enforcing these laws to resolve this ongoing issue, which is of great concern to Canadian truckers in terms of their jobs and their industry?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend's question.
No one is at issue with the fact that trucking is important to Canada. That is the reason I went to Windsor on Wednesday night-Thursday morning to meet with representatives of the independent truckers in an effort, with the assistance of the Minister of Transport of Ontario, to alleviate the situation.
As far as the issue of cabotage is concerned, we discussed that with the independent truckers. There are methods in place at the present time to make sure that it does not happen. It is a combination of an effort by Minister of Employment and Immigration and by the Minister of National Revenue. We had discussions with the provincial officials, and we have agreed to work together to see if we can improve methods of detecting cabotage, where it is occurring. Those discussions are ongoing.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, Canadians will find it strange that the minister is unable to tell us that he and the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Minister of National Revenue are enforcing laws that are already on the books. It would be reassuring if he could tell us that that enforcement by his own colleagues and himself is beginning this weekend.
Madam Speaker, my second question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
May 25, 1990

It is particularly disturbing to see that some trucking companies in the United States are applying allegedly aggressive and unfair pricing policies that are prejudicial to Canadian truckers.
Has the Bureau of Competition Policy started to investigate these practices, and if not, when will it do so? This is another matter that is important to the trucking industry in this country, an industry that is in turn very important to our economy.


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Madam Speaker, I think we must realize that the Bureau of Competition Policy has a job to do and that it is in a position to respond to complaints that are filed with the Bureau.
However, it is not particularly easy when the hon. Leader of the Opposition starts accusing everyone by saying there are problems with the Bureau of Competition Policy, without being specific.
My colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, whom I am representing today and I, as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, are here, and we have legislation and regulations to deal with this. However, any serious complaints must first be identified and individuals and companies named, and only then will we be able to act.
I can assure you that we have all the resources we need to act, but I think the Leader of the Opposition should act responsibly and specify the nature of his charges so that we can do something about them.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, it is up to the minister to listen to Canadian truckers, and he should not avoid doing so when they have complaints to make. I hope he will listen to those complaints and act on them.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue.

I want to know if the Minister of National Revenue has begun collecting the federal excise tax on gasoline to the same extent as the burden of that tax is imposed on Canadian truckers. If not, I would like him to tell us exactly when he will begin doing so.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, it appears at the present time-and this comes forward from previous administrations, so I have no
Oral Questions
embarrassment in saying it-that there is no effective measure for collecting federal excise tax on shall we say full tanks of gas coming from the United States, whether it is in a Canadian truck or an American truck.
We discussed the method of the Ontario government of trying to collect its Ontario sales tax on the fuel. We undertook-and are moving on it immediately-to look at some method whereby we in Canada could begin to collect tax on full tanks of fuel in an effort to level out the playing field.
Ontario agreed to work with us on this initiative, and we will report back when we have something that we can deal with. I would hope at that time, if it requires legislation, that my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, would ensure the House on behalf of his party speedy co-operation and no delays in the Senate.


THE ECONOMY
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday the Minister of Finance lectured the House that high interest rates were necessary in order to keep Canadian costs of doing business competitive.
Also, yesterday the finance committee heard from Mr. James Taylor, President of the Canadian Exporters Association, who said: "the government's"-that is the Tory government-"high interest rate and high dollar policies are equal to a self-imposed tariff of 10 per cent on Canadian exports to the U.S. and 15 per cent on Canadian products sold overseas".
When is the government going to abandon this high interest, high dollar rate and allow Canadian exporters to be competitive on world markets and save Canadian jobs which have been going down-71,000 in the first four months of this year?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member will see, if he reviews the export figures over the last seven, eight or nine months, a gradual increasing trend in our export performance. While I accept the fact that the export sector of our economy is under pressure because of the interest rate policy that we are following, the same sector has been able to demonstrate increasing competitiveness and therefore an ability still to tap into foreign markets in spite of this policy.

May 25, 1990
Oral Questions
I say to my hon. friend and I say to Mr. Thylor of the export association, as I have said to him on a number of occasions: if we do not deal with these underlying threats to our competitive position, the ongoing impact on individual companies in the export sector will be permanent.
It is important that we preserve this competitive position, and that means getting the inflationary pressures down. I remind my hon. friend that in 1989 we started the year with a 4.5 per cent increase in unit labour costs. That is the best measure of our competitive position that I can give. We started at 4.5 per cent and by the end of the year it was 6.9 per cent. That says we are losing business. If we continue that way we will lose business on a permanent basis, and that lost business means lost jobs.


Mrs. Campbell (South West Nova):: Because of your policies.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have a supplementary question for the same minister, Madam Speaker.
The minister must admit that his policies are not working. Will he finally tell the House that his budget of last February does not help Canadians, does not help Canadian exports and that it is destroying the Canadian economy? Will he give us a new budget as soon as possible to correct the economic situation the country is in?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my colleague has just referred to the difficulties with the budget. I would ask him to address his colleagues in the Senate because there are two bills right now that are being held up by the Senate.


Mr. Lapierre:: They are being studied.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Have a conference.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The exclusive difference between the House of Commons and the Senate is on these bills. The questions are who decides to raise taxes and where should the spending cuts be?
If the Senate persists in doing this, what it is providing is a loan to the large corporations in this country which is in the hundreds of millions of dollars now. I have heard my colleagues opposite ask: "Why do you not you ensure that the tax system is fair and that large corporations are properly taxed?" Today, large corporations are not paying a large corporations tax simply because the bill has not been passed by the Senate. Until the Senate-


Coline M. Campbell: And they will not after.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Essex-Windsor.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport who has himself created much of the problem that has existed in central Canada this week among the truckers. The fact is that the minister was requested at least a month ago-


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Who made the request?


Steven W. Langdon: -to have a meeting with the key parties which have been involved in this protest. There was no response to that request.
Now another telegram has come from some of the same parties: the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway and Transport Workers, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Transportation and Communications International Union. They have asked this minister if he is prepared to have an urgent meeting with them to discuss these problems that exist across the province, problems that persist today.
The minister knows himself that the blockade at Fort Erie is still in place. He knows that truckers across the province-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member does have a question.


Charles Joseph Clark: No, no, it is a major speech.


Mr. Beatty:: Twenty minutes, Madam Speaker.


Steven W. Langdon: My question is the following: In view of the continuing reality of these trucking blockades, is the minister prepared to meet with the groups that told him
May 25, 1990

by telegram that they need an urgent meeting to discuss the crisis they see for truckers in central Canada?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Questions and comments on the member's speech.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, that was a great question on Tuesday and Wednesday, but it is a little late on Friday.
1 was asked to go down to Windsor. I did go down on Wednesday night after the vote. I met with representatives of the independent truckers, and I guess that is key. There was no association there in terms of an elected representative or president, et cetera. That is part of the difficulty.
I met with representatives from those involved in the blockade on Thursday morning. We discussed their concerns. We agreed that we could satisfy their concerns.
We came out of the meeting and had a public meeting with the media. They were satisfied, the words were: "David's won". Unfortunately, David could not go back to the blockade and deliver all the other Davids. So we do not have the blockade lifted.
I regret that as much as you do. I made copies of my letter available to everybody. We are prepared to do what we can.
We have had the meeting you asked for. It just has not had the results we all want.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, I wrote to the minister on April 17 on behalf of these various unions requesting an urgent meeting because of these problems. The minister has not responded to that request. He has attempted to say that there are no problems that existed in the industry.
Is the minister prepared to respond to this telegram that has now reached him, a telegram which comes not from the independent truckers but from the many employees of trucking firms across this province? They are the key people at this stage who are carrying forward this trucking blockade. Is he prepared to meet and take some serious action?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I am prepared to respond to any request once I
Oral Questions
get it. To the best of my knowledge, it has not been received by my department. It has been delivered to my hon. friend. That is fair ball.
I understand that he is going to be dealing with his colleagues in the various unions. I do not knock that. If they want to meet and have discussions with me, they would be better off doing it directly rather than delaying it by going through my friend.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, I have to say to the minister that this is not a telegram to me. This is a telegram to him, a copy of which I happen to have. If he has not seen it, it is his department's fault, not my fault.
I want to ask my supplementary question of the Minister of Employment and Immigration since the Minister of Employment Immigration has also had a suggestion from the ministry in Ontario to the effect that people be deputized in the Ontario Department of Transport to enforce the immigration laws of this country against U.S. truckers who are taking loads from places that they are not supposed to.
Is the minister prepared to make a commitment at this stage that in fact she will accept this quite legitimate, straightforward and sensible suggestion from the ministry in the province of Ontario that this deputization of the transport ministry officials in Ontario take place? Will she take that advice? Will she act?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, like my other colleagues, I am working very closely with the Minister of Transport on what is a very difficult issue, and one that I think the Minister of Transport has developed a strategy for. He has been very accommodating. I will continue to work with him on this.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment my question is directed to the acting Prime Minister.
Yesterday outside the House the new Minister of the Environment refused to endorse this government's policy to stabilize carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2000.

May 25, 1990
Oral Questions
It is a commitment that was made by his predecessor two weeks ago, and confirmed last week in the House by the Minister of Forestry when he said, as reported at page 11612 of Hansard: "These are federal commitments".
Is it government policy to stabilize carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2000?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Madam Speaker, as you know, the Minister of the Environment is in Winnipeg attending consultation sessions that are being held throughout Canada which will result in the development of commitments to the Green Plan that will be taken to the international conference in Geneva this November.
The minister responded to questions yesterday outside the House which confirmed what his predecessor said in Bergen, namely, that Canada aims at stabilizing CO2 emissions in our country by the year 2000. His leadership was reflected in the Bergen declaration.
The hon. member should know that in order to achieve a target like that it will require sacrifices on the part of every Canadian. In fact it will require changes in our life-styles. This is why we have engaged in such a comprehensive consultation process which will result in the announcement of these commitments that are possible and sustainable later on this year.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
The former Minister of the Environment committed this government unconditionally to stabilize carbon dioxide emissions. The Minister of Forestry confirmed this in the House last week.
I want to ask the acting Prime Minister why this government is back-tracking on this very important issue? How does he expect Canadians to believe anything that this government now says about the environment?


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, there is no back-tracking, as the hon. member would know if she had studied the deliberations of the Bergen commission.


Catherine S. Callbeck: The Bergen commission did not make any commitments.


Frank Oberle: There are those who say that it would actually be possible by the year 2000 to attain a 20 per cent reduction of CO2 emissions, particularly throughout the industrialized world.
The minister has stated on behalf of Canada a Canadian target, a Canadian commitment to stabilize by the year 2000 the greenhouse gases that are emitted in Canada to current 1990 levels. There is no confusion about that.
What we are doing now is consulting with Canadians who would have to accommodate these kinds of commitments. We will be the government by the year 2000. The hon. member will realize then that what we have done and what we have committed to will actually have been achieved.


FISHERIES
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
He will know that the recent Atlantic fisheries aid package contained nothing, not a single red cent, for inshore fishermen and the related plant workers who are the victims of massive catch failure.
His colleague, the Minister for International Trade, said last week that the government was waiting until the end of the season. If he is talking about the winter season, it ended seven weeks ago. If he is talking about the summer season, it will not end until October. Surely, he is not suggesting that we wait until then.
Is the government now prepared to recognize the desperate plight in which those people find themselves right now? Is the government prepared to act right now to do something to help them ease their pain?


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the government recognizes that there are problems in the inshore fishery. Those matters have been considered in companion with other actions taken by the government with regard particularly to problems caused relating to the stocks of northern cod.
I would not want to cause the hon. member to believe that there will be an imminent announcement with regard to the inshore fishery.
May 25, 1990


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister.
He will know that 100,000 workers in Atlantic Canada make their living either in the fishing boats or in the fish plants. His colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, admitted a week or so ago that the government has a plan to downsize that number.
Is the minister now in a position to tell us how many fishermen are going to be zapped, if you like, and be wiped out by the government's drive to downsize the fishery? Is he prepared to indicate whether there is a hit list of communities, if you like, that will be wiped off the face of the map by the government's mad scheme?


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the hon. member and I have had an exchange before about policies designed to end fishing communities in Newfoundland.


Roger Simmons: Your comments went over like a lead balloon last time, too.


Charles Joseph Clark: There were policies of that kind brought in by a former Liberal government of Newfoundland. But they are not part of the plans of this government. Nor is any part of the plan of this government, if I may use his moderate language, to zap fishermen or to take any other actions of that kind.
There is a recognition that there is a serious problem in the fishery and, among other things, that there is a need to help prepare people who are in the fishing industry who will not be able to continue to find full lives in that industry, adapt to other opportunities. That was part of the announcement that was made by my colleague the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. That is part of the policy that this government is following.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It relates to the Meech Lake impasse and the activities that are occurring at this time.
Oral Questions
As the Deputy Prime Minister knows, we are very concerned that the constitutional impasse over the Meech Lake Accord be resolved. But there are other Canadians who are concerned as well-northerners, women, aboriginal Canadians-that they not be left out of the process completely. They are concerned that by the nature of the behind-the-scenes negotiations they will again be left out, that their concerns will not be addressed, that they will not be informed of the nature of the discussions.
What assurances can the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister give that this will not be a done deal between the Prime Minister and the ten Premiers? What assurances can he give those many, many Canadians who are concerned so that the deal can be done, and that there can be an honest resolve to this impasse?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is aware, I am sure, of the special parliamentary committee that was established to look into this and the recommendations that came forth from a very valuable piece of work that was done by a number of members on all sides of the House.
Those recommendations, along with other proposals that are being advanced by the Premiers and, indeed, the Prime Minister as a result of the discussions that Senator Murray has had with each of the provincial premiers, involve questions that are being dealt with in an attempt to narrow down the differences that exist that prevent the Meech Lake Accord from being ratified.
Clearly, all these things will be taken into consideration. That assurance I think goes without saying.
Clearly, the groups to which the hon. member refers had an opportunity to appear before this committee to have their input. I am sure the committee took those views into account when it drafted its recommendations.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that the concerns of women, aboriginal Canadians, residents of the Northwest Territories and others were taken into account by the committee.

May 25, 1990
Oral Questions
Our concern now is to make sure that those same people are aware of what is happening over the next little while.
As I said earlier, we encourage the process. We encourage the meetings between the Prime Minister and the premiers. However, we want to make sure that the public of Canada is fully informed on a regular basis of what is being discussed and what the parameters of those discussions are.
I ask again that the Deputy Prime Minister give Canadians that assurance.
Hon. Don Ma/ankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, I can give the hon. member that assurance, just as the Prime Minister has given that assurance.
He indicated in the House yesterday very clearly that he would be meeting with all the Premiers over the weekend to see if there could be a narrowing of the differences which would hopefully form the basis of a first ministers' conference. That task will carry on over the weekend.
I am sure that at an appropriate time the Prime Minister will inform the House precisely as to the results of the meetings he will hold over the weekend with all the provincial premiers. It has been his nature to inform the House as fully as he possibly can. I think the hon. member appreciates that these negotiations are indeed, very sensitive and very important.
I noted that the Premier of Ontario, after the meeting with the Prime Minister, indicated that there are serious questions that must be resolved. He also indicated that he believed that the things that divide us are not insurmountable. As well, he made it very clear that seven provinces support the Meech Lake Accord and have not wavered from that support. He calls upon all provinces, in the national interest, to proceed with the passage of the Meech Lake Accord. I think that is the objective of all members of the House and, I am sure, the objective of all Canadians.


INTERNATIONAL BANKING
Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
I understand that representatives from other countries will be gathering in Paris next week to oversee the establishment of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
Given the importance of this new bank for the future of central and east European countries, which is of interest to all of us concerned that reforms taking place in that region be given every chance of success, what exactly is Canada's commitment to this new institution? How will it complement the government's other efforts of support for central and east European nations?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I will be representing Canada at the final signing of the agreements bringing into effect the new European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
We will have a participation in this bank of something like 3.4 per cent, which is the eighth-largest participation of the banks.
The initiative is basically a French initiative, but one to which the Prime Minister responded in a very important way because of our commitment to supporting what is happening in eastern Europe. The bank itself will support the reforms that are being undertaken in eastern Europe, in particular the desires of those countries to move into a market-oriented economy with good involvement of the private sector. The activities of the bank will support the private sector. Its mandate is specifically designed to do that.
In addition to that, we will be taking into account the importance of dealing with environmental problems in eastern European countries.
This new bank does complement the support that we have provided to these countries over the past few months. It is a more cost-effective way of providing that support since it is through a bank and therefore can be levered through borrowings by the bank in the financial markets.
In addition to that, we will help provide stronger support for our private sector companies in accessing that market and participating more aggressively in those markets.

May 25, 1990


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
When will the minister bring forward a full employment act, as recommended by her own advisory council in its report on full employment for all Canadians by the year 2000, released just a few days ago?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, many of the things suggested by the CEIAC committee are in Bill C-21, which is now in the other place. Thus, I do not want to repeat my arguments about that.
Clearly, there has been and will continue to be on the part of the government a commitment to growing employment in Canada and to the reduction of unemployment. That can be seen in the creation of 1.6 million new jobs since 1984. The proportion of people in the labour force working today is higher than it has ever been.
We are already well on the road to achieving the kind of employment capacities in Canada that we all want to see.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I shall have to send the minister's answer to the advisory council to see whether or not it feels that this is a full employment act, as it has suggested.

My supplementary question is for the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. Let us talk about jobs, good jobs. What is the minister now doing to increase the number of scientists and engineers-we have about a third as many per capita as the United States-and also, to increase investment in research and development, which is about half that in the United States, in order to create good jobs here in Canada?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Madam Speaker, as the Economic Council of Canada pointed out, there are very good jobs being created at the high end of the economic spectrum.
Oral Questions
We are seeing some shift in the kind of jobs as we head into a technological age.
One of the reasons that the training component that is called for in the CEIAC report is important, and which we want to undertake through Bill C-21, is that there is no point in having economic or regional development or investment in science and technology if there are no trained people to fill those jobs.
Already in Canada today we have shortages within some skill areas, regardless of the unemployment rate. I believe that the economy we are building in this decade is exactly the kind of economy we need for the future.


FISHERIES
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: My question is for the Minister of Fisheries, Madam Speaker. Quebec Fisheries Minister Michel Page called the federal agreement on Quebec fisheries "dry bread". Under this fisheries agreement, Quebec will get only 2.7 per cent of the total package. Will the federal fisheries minister try to correct this unfair situation and treat Quebec fishermen fairly and equitably?


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, there is no question that the Government of Canada is aware of the particular problems facing those who depend on the fishery in Quebec as, indeed, the Government of Canada is aware of and acting on the problems that affect the people who depend on all the Atlantic fishery.
It should be pointed out that the Atlantic plan that was announced has direct benefits for the people of Quebec, not only in terms of the advantages through stock growth and increased science, but specifically through the provision of $10 million that will provide for stability in harvesting, processing, and aquaculture.
I want to point out to my hon. friend that the Minister of Fisheries has met with his counterpart in Quebec. He intends to meet with his counterpart in Quebec again because he is interested in concluding a program to help

May 25, 1990
Oral Questions
the fishermen of Quebec, recognizing the problems that they face.


Mark Joseph Assad: Madam Speaker, the member who spoke for the minister does not realize that Quebec is in a crisis that has resulted in the loss of 2,000 fisheries jobs.
Will the federal fisheries minister help Quebec fishermen and raise the funding to a reasonable level at the very least, because they have already lost 2,000 jobs?


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Madam Speaker, first, I would like to say that, yes, the minister and-if I am allowed in this forum to say it-I, as well, are more than aware of the problems of Quebec.
My three colleagues who have particular interest in this matter have made the point very clear a number of times to the minister. There is a very clear understanding of the problem.
In terms of response to problems that are ongoing, it is recognized that there has been the loss of jobs. It is the same as it has been in the rest of Atlantic Canada.
The hon. member and others should be aware that the government has responded, and responded quickly, in the past through the use of established programs that are designed specifically to provide for emergencies. We are well aware of those programs-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member wants to get into debate, it would be better to do so later on.
The hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake.
*jc


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords -Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Justice.
Yesterday's unanimous Supreme Court ruling on the validity of a treaty signed with Quebec Hurons clearly indicates that the treaty rights of Indian people across Canada must be upheld. Every year, particularly during
the spring, Indian people are charged by the provinces for hunting in contravention of the Migratory Birds Convention Act.
Will the federal government now review its position and stop insisting on the prosecution of Indians hunting for their domestic use? Just as important, will the federal government recognize its responsibilities and act to prevent provincial governments from legislating away treaty rights?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, before the federal government reviews its position on the general issue that the hon. member has raised, I think it appropriate to review this very significant decision brought down yesterday by the Supreme Court of Canada in the matter of the Attorney General of Quebec v. the Sioui Indians of the Huron tribes of Quebec.
This decision will be reviewed thoroughly by the Department of Justice and by my officials in the Department of Indian Affairs. A further response will be forthcoming in due course.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Madam Speaker, the obligation of the federal government is obviously to recognize, enforce, and promote treaty rights, instead of trying to off-load services to the provinces.
Will the government accept its responsibilities, maintain and promote the treaty rights, and ensure that the federal government assumes its responsibilities in all these areas?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that the Government of Canada and my ministry, in particular, have always respected and promoted our treaty obligations. We will continue to do so, as witnessed by the very important programs through which we are making great progress in bringing economic and social improvements to the situation of Indians throughout Canada.


TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
May 25, 1990

I am told that the government is about to announce a reduction in flight inspections, atmospheric tests, a shut-down of some air traffic control centres, and some training for air traffic controllers. How can he even consider such a money grab at the expense of safety?
Hon, Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport): Madam Speaker, my hon. friend's allegations are completely unfounded. We will never compromise on safety.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Madam Speaker, here we have the classic case of the left hand not knowing what the other left hand is doing.
On the one hand the minister says he knows nothing. Yet, on the other hand, government sources have revealed that a draft of a Transport Canada plan proclaims: "Reducing this high cost item should provide relief and generate immediate long-term savings attainable through implementation of this plan".
How has the minister considered the long-term effects of such a short-sighted plan?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I would suggest that my hon. friend will find that the long-term effects of unfounded allegations will result in nobody believing him when he does have a good one.


SCOTIA SYNFUELS PROJECT
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology, I direct my question to the Government House Leader. It has to do with a matter which he is familiar with, namely the Scotia Synfuels application under the tax credit program for Cape Breton investment.
The Minister of Industry, Science and Technology knows that this project will be off the drawing board soon and underway the minute it is approved. My question is this: Is the minister now ready to give the green light to this project or to assure us that his colleague will do so?
Routine Proceedings


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, if I might be permitted to respond on behalf of the Minister of Industry who is away on government business, this application is under consideration and, when the decision is ready to be released, it will be released.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, the minister knows that it is essential that approval for this tax credit be given very shortly so the project can go forward. He also knows that approval of the tax credit does not permit the government to spend resources on this project until it starts to earn tax revenue. However, it is necessary for the consortium to begin private sector financing so that this project to go forward. He knows the benefits this will have in terms of jobs and finding a clean source for Cape Breton coal. Will he not act now and accelerate the process so this project can go forward?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is basically asking that the project be approved right now on the floor of the House of Commons without the proper kind of analysis. He knows full well that were we to do what he is asking, one of his colleagues would undoubtedly, based on an Auditor General's report, ask how could you commit so much taxpayers' money without proper consideration to the application? Surely, he would want us to be prudent, as we always are.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government responses to five petitions; Nos. 342-5929, 342-6152, 342-6160, 342-6185 and 342-6186.

May 25, 1990
Point of Order POINT OF ORDER


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I just want to raise a short point of order respecting activities which occurred last night. My point of order concerns a quorum call in the Chamber late last night. Representatives of the parties in this House had worked out, and agreed on, and understood the effect of, the terms of the special order under which debate on the bill was being conducted. These same channels, as we call them, understood that the Chair and its advisers understood and agreed that the terms of the order meant what they said. Debate on the bill would continue until the times set out in the order, or until no further member rose on debate. It would be by vote on the question for third reading, and nothing else, that this stage of the bill would be disposed of.
Much of the understanding by the House seems to have been breached last night when the New Democratic Party proposed a unanimous consent motion right off the wall. There had been no consultation. Then when a quorum count was called, I was surprised that the Chair even entertained, or accepted, either of these proposals. The reason is simply because of the special order, which had been put in place.
Because of that order, members were preparing their remarks for debate or were following debate in places nearby where they could watch the debate through the broadcast system. They were doing this in good faith, based on the all-party special order made by unanimous consent after full consultations.
However, it seems we are faced with a possible new principle given last night's antics. Is it now the case that orders adopted by unanimous consent are binding only on those members who are in the House when the order is made or, even worse, that any member can later change his or her mind and start deviating from or challenging the order?
In conclusion, I think it would best serve the House if the Chair could perhaps, not immediately, report back with a ruling on the weight of a special order in place for this debate. If such orders do not prevent proposals such as made last night, or other proposals from being
received by the Chair, then we had all better know about it now so that in future we can take this into account.
Madam Speaker, we operate on the basis of what has been presumed to be practice. We had operated, not in a vacuum, but based on old advice and word given, and so on. Therefore it was with some surprise we saw that the special order-and there were other unwritten things- was tantamount to Standing Orders that supersede the existing ongoing Standing Orders for the duration of that bill, and only that bill. To find out that is not now the case, as I say, was a bit of a surprise.
I hope the Chair might be able to find some means by which we could establish a modus vivendi that would allow us to operate on the basis that we tried to operate on yesterday and which I think is in everybody's interest, on the government side of the House, the opposition side of the House and, certainly, the Chair. So it is in that context that I ask the Chair to consider this point of order.


Ms. Black:: You are full of nonsense.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, having been party to the negotiations that led to the special order that we adopted in this House on May 10, I confirm in part what the government House leader has said. I think it was clearly expected that, as stated in the order, no amendments would be accepted by the Chair during the extended debate on third reading.
The purpose of the extension of the hours on third reading, as stated by the hon. member for Ottawa-Van-ier when he was commenting on the motion, was to, and I quote him from page 11291 of Hansard'.
- allow all members a chance to put forward their views on this very important issue, and also give them the opportunity to plan according to the day and the votes and the hours at which these things will be held so that there will be no surprises.
I stress those words, the intention was there would be "no surprises". Now the government House leader has complained about the conduct of certain members last evening in trying to sidetrack the debate and prevent the decision from being made at the appropriate time on Tuesday. I think that those attempts came to naught. But I do say, in fairness, that it is the government's responsibility to maintain a quorum in the House when government bills are under discussion. It is the government's
May 25, 1990

responsibility to keep members in the House for that purpose and-


Blaine Allen Thacker: Is it your responsibility on an opposition day?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: On a government bill, it is the government's responsibility.


Blaine Allen Thacker: It is your responsibility.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. member says it is the opposition's responsibility. It is clearly the government's responsibility and, indeed, it is their responsibility to have ministers here during discussions of government bills.
I have raised that point dozens of times in this Parliament when I have pointed out that there is no minister of the Crown present in the House during discussion of government bills. I am glad to see that they are here and participating in the debate today.
The fact is that is the way Parliament operates. It has to be done in that way. While the tricks that were played last night by certain members of the New Democratic Party were, in my view, contrary to the agreements that had been worked out between the parties, I still feel that there was nothing specific in the order that had been adopted about it and the difficulty is that-


Dawn Black: It was the old boys' network.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I said, while they may have been proper and not included in the order, the spirit of the agreement that was worked out, the intention in allowing the extended debate-


Dawn Black: We interrupted your dinner, eh?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I see I have stirred up a hornet's nest on my left. The agreement was worked out and the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan was party to this arrangement. They were well aware that an arrangement had been made whereby the debate would be extended to permit orderly debate, with fixed times for votes on this very important bill that is before this House.
If hon. members want to use the rules to delay and obstruct what has been arranged among all parties in this House, of course that is their right and I say it is the government's responsibility to maintain the House.
Point of Order
On the other hand, I think it is clear from the ruling that no amendments were to be accepted and that members were to be recognized in debate, and only in debate, and I suggest that in standing to do other than debate, members may not have been participating properly in the proceedings last evening.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission -Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I would like to state very clearly, and it is unfortunate that the minister who has just dressed down myself and this party is not here to listen to the response-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will of course hear at length whatever the hon. member has to say, but she should know by now that making mention of the presence or absence of any member of the House is not the correct way to proceed in this place.


Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reference to his absence and will make reference to his manners.
With regard to the content of what the minister said, that no deals were made on the matters beyond the agreement achieved in a motion before the House, we proposed and moved on matters of great seriousness. In fact, in consultation with the Table and in our caucus, we met both the spirit and content of the motion before us and the rules of the House. At one point, I got up on a point of order and asked the Chair to clarify what the rules were in the House.
As opposition members who have very strong feelings and a strong policy behind us on this bill, we have opposed it from its inception. We opposed its introduction, and we were opposed throughout debate. I would suggest that the government-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is now getting into debate about the bill itself. She is no longer talking about procedure. Is the hon. member for Churchill seeking the floor? The hon. member for Mission- Coquitlam.


Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, it is not my intention to go into debate. I am trying to lead to a logical conclusion based on the remarks made by the minister.
The tone of the debate made it very clear that we did not take this motion or legislation lightly and that we would do whatever we could to oppose and defeat the

May 25, 1990
Point of Order
legislation. We sought advice from the Table. We advised them before we made our intervention on the motion when we sought unanimous consent. I think it is very important to respond to the comment about the spirit of the agreement.
Are we now suggesting that members in this House should somehow by osmosis understand the spirit of an agreement? The only spirit of agreement in the House is that a good number here oppose this bill and will work to defeat it. That is what we were doing. I would appreciate and look forward to the Chair's ruling on what happened last night.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, as we know, this place often operates under a consensus.


An hon. member:: It is called "the old boys' club."


Blaine Allen Thacker: It might be called "the old boys' club" but my question for the NDP is this. When they have an opposition day, does it mean they have to provide the full quorum all day from start to finish? I can tell you that if you had to do so, you would not have had one opposition day this year.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, other than the silly intervention that we just heard, the issue that was raised by the government House leader was whether or not the Chair should have recognized the various motions that were put forward by the members of the New Democratic Party.
Obviously, the Chair should and did recognize the motions that were put forward. One motion was for a quorum call, and that is quite acceptable within the rules of this House. It is quite acceptable within the rules of the Standing Order under which we were operating. If the government members were so busy that they were all preparing speeches in order to take part in the debate later, as the government House leader indicated, then perhaps they would have spoken later in the evening. Not one of them did so.
Obviously the members of the government were not in their offices preparing speeches. They did not speak. That was a point made-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: At this time, I have the feeling of what is going on in the House.
I would like to thank the government House leader and other members who participated in this exchange, the member for Kingston and the Islands, the member for Mission-Coquitlam, and the member for Churchill.
There was a question as to whether the Chair should have entertained the motions last night. The special order was silent on the rules relating to quorum. Whatever the understanding was among the different parties earlier, it was not in the written order. The Chair, I would say, certainly did well in putting the question and asking for a quorum.
When a request for unanimous consent is brought to the Chair's attention, the Chair does not have any choice but to ask for unanimous consent. The House itself is the master at all times and with unanimous consent can do whatever it wants to do.
The government House leader has asked the Chair to look at what happened yesterday, to think about the situation, and to come back to the House with some suggestions as to ways to proceed in the future. The Chair will take this under advisement and will report back to the House.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, of course I accept your ruling and respect it, but I would like a clarification of what you have said.
The member for Mission-Coquitlam has just said that it is their intention to block this legislation in any way possible because they are so opposed to it. Given their total opposition and the fact that they have now committed themselves to doing anything they can-


Dawn Black: In the House.


Benno Friesen: -in the House to defeat the legislation, it would appear to me that agreements among parties becomes really quite valueless, unless all members of the parties adhere to that understanding and that agreement.
Madam Speaker, I would respectfully ask, you to take that as a question on how we deal in the future with all-party agreements as to how the House should operate if one of the parties to that agreement feels that it can go beyond the agreement because it opposes a particular piece of legislation.
May 25, 1990


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, the member has actually extended the debate and you allowed him to do so. I think it is only fair that we be able to respond to that.
We did not break any deals, informal or formal. The House order was quite clear and stipulates that debate be allowed. It does not guarantee that we will not move to have a bill withdrawn because we have that right, and that was accepted by the Chair. It does not mean that we will not call for a quorum. We have that right and we exercise that right.
It does mean that if government members wish to keep a quorum they have to be present or available. That is a requirement. It also means that if one of the government members does not want the bill withdrawn, then perhaps there should be one government member in the House or somewhere near the House so that he or she may get up and do that. That is their responsibility.
The fact that they may have misunderstood the agreement or may have read something else into the agreement is their problem. It is not the problem of the Chair. It is not the problem of the New Democratic Party. Our honour is unblemished by what happened last night.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It is obvious to me that we are debating an issue which is altogether different from the matter under consideration a few minutes ago. I can only repeat that, at the request of the Government House Leader, the Chair has examined what happened yesterday. The special order adopted by the House did not preclude the possibility of a quorum call. When unanimous consent is being sought the Chair can only give hon. members an opportunity to do what they can, and that is change their mind at any time if indeed there is unanimous consent.
As to allowing other proceedings when the House is under special order, as requested by the Government House Leader and as I pointed out a moment ago, the Chair will examine the problem and, if necessary, get back to the House at the earliest opportunity.
For the time being I think we ought to put an end to-
Is the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam (Mrs. Langan) rising on a question of privilege?
Routine Proceedings


Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member on the other side of the House and the other side of the river from where I live in fact made a direct statement about what I said. As a matter of privilege I have a right to correct that statement.
The statement was that we would do anything we could, and the inference was within wide-ranging bounds, to stop this bill. I want to clarify for the Chair that I said we would do anything, and it is very clear, within the parameters of the rules of this House, to defeat this bill.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. This is Friday afternoon. Maybe we should proceed with the business of the House.



CANADIAN POLAR COMMISSION ACT


Thomas Edward Siddon: for leave to introduce Bill C-72, an act to establish the Canadian Polar Commission and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the hon. minister have leave to introduce the bill?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by numerous residents of my riding of Kingston and the Islands who are opposed to the cuts the government has made in the budget to the veterans program.
The petitioners object to the cuts in housekeeping services for veterans and the increased charges to veterans who are in long-term care.

May 25, 1990
Supply
These numerous persons who have signed these petitions are generally members of legion branches in my community. They are opposed to the nasty and unfair cuts the government has made which affect these people who have served their country in such a distinguished way and are now in effect being taxed. Their rights are being taken away. Benefits they had been granted by previous Liberal governments are being taken away by this mean-spirited Conservative administration.
These petitioners call upon Parliament to reject these cuts.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a number of petitions.
The first set of petitions deals with the GST. Petitions calling upon the government to withdraw this unfair tax continue to pour into my office, and I am pleased to present them to the House.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, the second set of petitions deals with VIA Rail cut-backs which continue to be a particular problem in our area because of the cut-backs to the E&N Railway.
It remains critically important for the signatories to this petition that we have a complete change in national rail policy, that the existing VIA network be maintained, that equipment be upgraded and that service be guaranteed so that we have an adequate national rail service in Canada.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from residents of Carleton- Gloucester regarding a Canadian citizen and taxpayer by the name of Yih-Sheh Leo who was arrested in Taiwan and sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment.
These citizens would like the government to issue a public statement expressing Canada's concern about a Canadian citizen's rights being violated, instruct the Canadian Embassy in Japan or the High Commissioner's Office in Hong Kong to send a representative to Taiwan, to appoint a lawyer to handle the case and, finally, to
request Canada's allies which have representatives in Taiwan to assist with the case.
The petition is duly signed and certified by the House and countersigned by myself.


CANADA POST
Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty, responsibility, and honour to table in the House of Commons petitions signed by residents of the community of Wilkie, Saskatchewan, a community with a population of 1,500. I have signatures on these petitions from 1,300 of those 1,500 residents.
The petitioners point out that the Department of Public Works has declared the Wilkie post office building surplus and offered the structure for sale, recognizing as well that Canada Post Corporation has expressed no interest in maintaining its lease under a new landlord.
The petitioners call on Parliament to support the maintenance of all postal services from the existing full service post office in the town of Wilkie and to reject any proposals that would result in the closing of the existing post office.
I support the petitioners and call on the government to respond favourably to their pleas.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Harb.
May 25, 1990
Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, I commend the Liberals for bringing this very important issue to the floor of the House. That is about the only positive thing I can say about the Liberals at this time as pertains to this particular issue.
Although honourable in some ways, I must suggest that Canadians should be somewhat cynical of their task force simply because the Liberals when in government continually cut back on financial assistance for municipalities. Finally, in March 1984 they terminated it.
One really has to wonder why the Liberals would cross this country asking for input from municipalities when they knew full well what the municipalities were going to say to them. In fact, they had initiated or were a part of the crisis. I think that puts it in an appropriate perspective.
Some of my colleagues indicated to me that it is National Fitness Week. I should have been aware of that, but in particular, it is "sneaker day'' I understand. I caution Canadians that if you are going to put on your sneakers and get out there running, there is a grave danger that you will hurt yourself while running on the sidewalks of this country.


An hon. member:: Or disappear into a pot-hole.


Steve Butland: Or disappear into a pot-hole. I notice that the ex-mayor of Moncton, now I believe the member, said in 1987 that it would take $3.5 million to bring the sidewalks of Moncton up to par so that people would not get hurt. Not all cities are as fortunate as Ottawa to have running trails.
Last year, I took the opportunity to go out to see Meech Lake. It was a place I had to see, and I am in accord with the agreement. I want to tell you that the roadway that led to Meech Lake was a disaster. Maybe it would be a symbolic gesture if we did something about that roadway on the way to Meech.
As a former municipal politician, I am very pleased to speak because I think the municipal level of government is the most accountable one. It is the one that is the most responsible. It has less bureaucracy for citizens to get involved with. They simply call their alderperson, voice a complaint and I think most of the time these people respond.
Supply
I am going to use my community, and not surprisingly so, as an example of the plight in which municipalities find themselves and have found themselves in for a long time. It is suggested in the community of Sault Ste. Marie that it would take $15 million a year to maintain the status quo on road, sewer and bridge infrastructure in the community. The community can spend only $5 million. You can see that the rate of deterioration will be catastrophic unless addressed. The community is forced, and I am sure all communities are doing this, to restructure priorities. It will have to look after only arterials and collectors. The residential streets will be untouched.
Talking about bridge safety, there are several bridges in the community that have weight limits, that is on a truck route which is completely ironical at best and paradoxical at worst. They are safety hazards. There are hundreds of grade separations in this country where nothing has been done and nothing will be done unless the municipalities and the provinces decide to do something. It is a financial impossibility.
Until 1984 the federal government was involved. In March 1984 the Liberal government said: "We cannot be involved any more. It is too costly." Now the Liberals are saying: "If we were in power, if we were the government of this country, we would be very much involved with the municipal infrastructure."
What do the two upper levels of government say? The provincial government says: "We are on side. We want to participate but we cannot participate unless the the federal government participates." The federal government says: "Constitutionally we cannot involve ourselves. Municipalities are creatures of the provinces not the federal government." Yet the federal government does involve itself when it is appropriate to do so. If the timing is right and if the expediency is right, the government does get involved with municipal infrastructure.
It gets involved in an ad hoc way from here to there across this country but with no national strategy whatsoever. This begs the three levels of government to sit down together and discuss the crisis in this country respecting infrastructure. We cannot say: "It is your problem. It is not my problem."
I think of the people in California saying: "I live in Los Angeles. I know that an earthquake is going to occur, but

May 25, 1990
Supply
I am going to stay anyway and suffer the risk." It is admirable, I suppose courageous, but one really has to wonder. This government is saying it knows there is a crisis, but it cannot address it.
It saddened me to hear the member for Anjou-Ri-viere-des-Prairies, who was a well respected president of FCM, calling local governments Santa Clauses when they are in power. I tell you that that member was the Kris Kringle of FCM. He was there every year, year after year, saying the federal government must involve itself. Why now, when asked a question, does the minister say absolutely nothing? He talks about deficit, he says to the municipalities: "I am sorry, there is nothing further we can do." Pie completely avoids that issue.
On June 4, 1988 he said: "I think there is a thaw coming in Ottawa." Well, I think the thaw has stopped and it is a freeze again. The federal government is not about to get involved. I have clippings from 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 saying: "We are willing to listen; we want to talk." Many ministers have spoken. The Deputy Prime Minister said: "I have an answer for you; double your water rates." That will go down well, will it not.


Eugène Bellemare: That was the former Minister of the Environment.


Steve Butland: Was it? Thank you. Whoever said it, it is sheer folly and the government knows that. It is passing the buck in a sense, but in the other sense, it will not pass the buck because it cut transfer payments. On the one hand it passes the buck but on the other hand, it says it cannot pass the buck because it does not have any bucks to pass. It is obvious hypocrisy.
I do not think the government has to say it is going to address the problem immediately and will get involved in this $15 billion or $16 billion big fix as the FCM calls it, and appropriately so because it has to be a big fix or this country is going to deteriorate. The streets, the sidewalks, the bridges, the very structures below them are crumbling. I think everybody understands that. Remediation and rehabilitation of roadways and bridges will cost one-tenth the cost of redoing the whole project, so money spent now will be money spent, yes. It will cost billions, maybe $15 billion to $20 billion, but if we let it go on it will cost 10 times that much. That is obviously a foolhardy way of dealing with the problem.
The federal government does involve itself with housing programs for municipalities, but do you think that the province and the federal government get together on those programs? Certainly not. They do not overlap. They are not dovetailed. They are separate programs. Why would anybody do that? Could they not get together and say: "We will dedicate this much money. Let us put it together. It makes a lot of sense." But no. Politically they say: "We want to take credit for this program" and the provinces say: "We want to take credit for this program". It begs liaison; it begs co-operation.
A department of municipal affairs does not need to have billions of dollars to start off, but I think it behoves the federal government to initiate discussion among the three levels. If the federal government took the lead and the province implemented or at least directed the program, the municipalities would be able to implement it. They are the people who best can implement the program.
The Minister of Finance had the gall to say: "Whenever we get involved with the municipalities we do not think we get our money's worth". What an appalling statement to make to municipal people. I think what he was saying is that we do not get our political money's worth. Whatever funds municipalities get from whichever level of government always have strings attached. In fact, one might say that they have a very heavy rope attached.
"You can have x thousands of dollars if you spend it this way. We will tell you how to spend your money, we know better than you do". Funds with strings attached is ridiculous. "We will give you 75 per cent if you spend 25 per cent on this project". It is not a way of handling a problem. Sometimes municipalities are duped or forced to get into a situation where they say: "Well, if we do not take the money, it will go elsewhere". This ad hoc treatment is not acceptable to anyone.
Government programs like deregulation which bring larger, longer and heavier trucks into our highway system and without trains only serve to exacerbate the problem. The decimation of VIA Rail puts more heavy buses on the roadway. This only exacerbates the problem. It requires at least a standardized national program among the three levels of government to say: "Here is the problem, how will we address it?"
May 25, 1990

This government is devoid of any creativity. Not one positive step toward addressing this problem has been mentioned. It would not necessarily take a national program immediately. Let us sit down and discuss it. There must be creative ways, such as taking a cent from the gasoline tax and giving it directly to the municipalities commensurate with the amounts of money that they spend in the local municipality. It would be a proportionate division of funds. I am not saying that is an answer. I do not even know how much money that would give to a municipality, but it is just one creative thought.
I know the minister is very sympathetic and a very creative individual. Given the opportunity with the three levels, I know this positive dialogue would address the situation. Right now we have not isolated the problem well enough. FCM has done a tremendous job, but its lobbying has fallen on deaf ears. Each and every year they say: "We want you to address the problem." Some minister says: "We will listen. We are good listeners", but nothing ever has happened. I do not suspect, judging from what the member for Anjou-Riviere-des-Prairies said today, there is any help forthcoming.
I would strongly encourage the government to initiate a department, not armed with millions of dollars, but one to bring about constructive dialogue. I think all Canadians, 100 per cent of the population of this country, would agree that there is a necessity for discussion about this major problem and how we are to address it. We cannot continually say, "It is not my problem". It is everyone's problem.
I have clippings that point out and isolate difficulties in so many municipalities across this country. It did not take a task force for me to find this out. We in the New Democratic Party do not have the funds to be traipsing across the country, nor do we have the funds that the government has to be everywhere. However, we are very aware of the problem. Some of the situations we read about in this country are appalling, to say the least.
Paradise, Newfoundland, for example, is a town of 4,000 people, 10 minutes from St. John's. Only 20 per cent of Paradise is served with water and sewer. They would require about $8 million from government to provide full service. They are getting $50,000 right now.
Supply
Old pipelines avenge their neglect. A good example is Yellowknife where they put in a sewer system in 1940 made of corrugated metal lined with moss for insulation. It is still functioning in the 1990s. That is amazing. That goes to show that old things that were built are still the best. We plan now for obsolescence. Plumbers tell us that they have to make repairs now that never were necessary 20 years ago. The old sewer systems are still working but they are starting to fall apart. What they found was that this system looked not unlike a fish's skeleton. The total bill now to replace this skeleton in Yellowknife is $15 million, and the saga continues.
I want to give my hon. friend from Ottawa credit. He went out to St. John's and he found out some very startling information that all of us certainly do appreciate.
"No big fix, but Clark will talk", this is 1988, Mr. Speaker, so FCM was still optimistic at that time. Everybody again seems to agree that this begs tri-level involvement.
"Municipal services", the Finance Minister says, "are the business of the federal government", pardon me, they are "no business of the federal government". I almost came upon a quotation that even would have surprised me.


An hon. member:: Time.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, I rely upon you for the time. I appreciate the Liberals are getting a little bit edgy. They may want to get on another task force and complete the cities that they did not get to the first time.
"Letter seen as signal Ottawa ready for urban renewal talks." That is a good one. Senator Murray said that. "We are almost ready for urban renewal talks." He said that in January, 1989. "Cities' evident needs cannot be ignored, Ottawa just needs some persuading." With what, I do not know.
It goes on: "Ottawa must commit cash to city repairs. This is a national problem, a question of economics and a quality of life. The ageing of infrastructure is a grave problem. It is illusory to think that Montreal could on its own successfully do the work." What are the problems in Montreal-

May 25, 1990
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: Questions and comments. The hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester.


Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I think the remarks of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Butland)- I suppose he pronounces it "Soo". In French, the homonym means something else entirely.

I would have liked to see the member for Sault Ste. Marie stick to the topic which was the motion of the Liberal Party:
That this House call upon the government to recognize that Canada's municipal infrastructure is facing a crisis of national proportions and that, given the serious implications to the nation's environment, economic prosperity and quality of life for Canadians, the government resume its traditional role as a partner with the provincial and municipal governments-
Then he seems to want to take the Liberals to task for not being serious or honest about that attitude. Apparently, he did not read the Liberal platform in 1987-88 during the election period. He certainly did not bother to read it. I would like to give him a little lesson in history if he would listen and if he would listen en frangais. Coming from Sault Ste. Marie, I would suggest that perhaps he grab the-


Steve Butland: Question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I am from "so" Ste. Marie,-I apologize that my French is not up to the standard of my hon. colleague-but I do take exception. I think he is taking undue liberties with my personal privilege as a member. Also, he is taking undue knocks on my community. I apologize for my lack of French facility, but I would ask the hon. member to decline from continuing those kinds of comments.


Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, during certain debates on Canadian unity, I did not hear the hon member speak. I do not mind at all in what language he speaks, but I am very interested in his attitude. So far, to me, it has been negative. I will continue-

Mr. Speaker, if he would listen to me, I would tell him-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member who has been speaking should, first, be addressing his remarks to the Chair and not directly to the member. In addition, to suggest that somebody did or did not speak on something, I think the hon. member should check the record to see just what the position of this hon. member was on a very important issue. He would find that the hon. member took a very principled position.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: The hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester (Mr. Bellemare) is trying to make a point, and I suggest we listen very carefully.


Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I will continue my short history of Canada, if the hon. member would care to listen.
According to an article that appeared in Le Devoir on December 30, 1988, the Trudeau government, in 1980, suddenly terminated all direct assistance to municipalities, mainly because of a conflict with the provinces about the new Department of Urban Affairs. In 1983, a full-scale legal dispute developed between the Levesque and Trudeau governments. At the time, Quebec even threatened to use Bill 38 to deal with municipalities that accepted assistance directly from Ottawa. At the time, the dispute was only about job creation programs. In 1987 and 1988, the Liberal caucus wanted to bring this issue up again, and it became part of the Liberal platform.
I want to congratulate the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Harb) and the hon. member for Nepean (Mrs. Gaffney) for setting up the task force.
The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie objected that he or his party did not have enough money to set up such a task force. I must tell him that the two members of Parliament and their colleagues spent their own money to travel across Canada, they used their own money to tour Canada. I advise him and suggest that he do the same.
I would like to ask him a question, still in reference to the article published in Le Devoir on December 30, 1988. I will first read a short passage to you and then ask you a
May 25, 1990

brief question. I am sure that the hon. member will fully agree with me. Here is the quote:
Brian Mulroney proposed to the provinces that municipal infrastructures be on the agenda of the next federal-provincial conference on the economy.
This is still from the Devoir article of December 30, 1988:
A $ 15-billion reconstruction plan has been waiting for the green light from Ottawa for 1hree years. "I personally think that the maintenance and improvement of municipal infrastructures is very important," said Mr. Mulroney. This conference, which was to take place on November 28 and 29,-
1988,
- in Calgary was postponed because of the general election.
So my question for the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, two years later and still no answer, is: Do you agree with me or not? Do you agree with me? Does the Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party keep his word or not?


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for my two Liberal colleagues on the task force. Perhaps I took a little liberty about the fact of spending money. I very much appreciate that they had to expend some of their own funds to participate in that task force. I certainly render complete apologies in that area.
As to the historical lesson on the Liberal Party and the legal wrangle, I think the hon. member for Carleton- Gloucester can also accept the fact that the funding from the government, at that time, had been gradually reducing and deteriorating as time progressed. I think history will bear that out.
Let me answer the question that my hon. colleague asks me. I was not aware of the Prime Minister's comments and I am only too glad to hear them. It simply goes along with a whole host of other ministers who have made several similar comments in 1985, 1986, 1987,1988, and I understand even in early 1990. They are suggesting that they recognize the problem and they will listen. We know there is no action now and there has not been for five years, and we suspect there will not be any action forthcoming.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I was most interested in the hon. member's comments with respect to co-operation among levels of
Supply
government and I am one who certainly subscribes to that principle. As has been pointed out by our colleague from the Liberals, it is not always an easy matter to obtain co-operation through all levels of government, even if you have the best of intentions. There was, previously, as the hon. member will recall, a Minister of State for Urban Affairs in the federal government and because of difficulties with the provinces that position disappeared.
Over the last year I have been making some attempts in my own area of housing to create just such a situation where there is co-operation among the three levels of government. In fact, we have had a good deal of success with respect to that, dealing specifically with the issue of affordable housing. We have set up in a number of the major urban centres across the country tri-level committees made up of federal, provincial and municipal representatives to try to find ways to clear away the barriers and create housing that is affordable in this country.
It has not been possible in every one of the provinces and every one of the urban centres across this country, because there are differing points of view with respect to the provinces as to what role the federal government should be playing in respect to municipalities which they view as their creatures, as the hon. member knows this well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: The Chair has been very generous with that question and answer. The time has really over-expired.
I will allow a very short comment from the hon. member for Sault-Ste. Marie in reply.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to try to answer the question, if there was a question.


Alan Redway: I know there will be unanimous consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: Is there unanimous consent to permit the hon. minister to put his question?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Alan Redway: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues. The hon. member referred to a number of newspaper articles and clippings. I realize he is an avid reader and I would like to draw to his attention an article by Mr. Barry Nelson of the Calgary Herald of May 1,

Supply
1990, which he may not have read, and then I would like to have a comment from him on that. The article states:
Every special interest group in the country is always screaming for more-higher wages, expanded services, new legislation, increased government grants and new government support for new worthy causes.
All of this has a price tag, a fact that many opponents of the GST seem able to overlook. We've been living high on the hog for generations and the bill is due.
I wonder if the hon. member would like to comment on that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: A short reply from the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, I was anticipating a difficult question.


Beryl Gaffney: Well, he knew you could not give an answer to it if it was a difficult question.


Steve Butland: It has been a rough afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I have really roused the Liberals and that is probably very positive. It is time they were roused.
As to the minister's statement, he is right, I am an avid reader and this issue is very near and dear to me. I have tried to keep abreast of all recent articles.
[Editor's Note: The fire alarm having sounded.]


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The sitting is suspended to the call of the Chair.


SITTING SUSPENDED
[Stage Direction]
The sitting of the House was suspended at 1.04 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 1.53 p.m.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Proceedings were interrupted when the siren warned us that fire might have broken out in the building. Everything is now under control. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Nepean.
One moment, please. I see the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie is seeking the floor.


Steve Butland: I am wondering about House procedure when the alarm rings. I encouraged people to leave- and I can appreciate why perhaps people would not want to follow me-but I am wondering, is it not procedure to immediately disperse and dispense with House proceedings and leave the House?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: As soon as I was advised, I suspended the sitting until the call of the Chair. Of course, everyone is expected to leave the building when we hear the siren. I went outside right away. I don't know if you did. If some members did not, they were not following the rules, and certainly not following the rules of safety. The hon. member for Nepean.


TIME OF SITTING
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member but I did not wish her speech to be interrupted mid-flight.
As you know we must have a motion before the House to deal with Monday's business. I think you will find consent for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, on Monday, May 28,
1990, the House meet at 2.00 o'clock p.m. for "Statements by
Members", followed by "Oral Questions" and the remaining order
of business as provided for Mondays.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the parliamentary secretary have leave to introduce the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Harb.
Beryl Gaffney: Madam Speaker, I was beginning to wonder if I was ever going to be able to give
May 25, 1990

this speech. After you work on a speech late at night you begin to wonder if your speech really is a barn-burner.
I am very pleased to be able to speak on Canada's deteriorating infrastructure, and as co-chair of the Liberal task force that travelled across Canada in 1989, the critical state was very clearly brought home to me and my colleagues.
On many occasions since 1984 representations have been made to the federal government for the creation of a program to shore up Canada's deteriorating infrastructure. These proposals to date have been ignored by this government.
The facts remain, however, that without a major infusion of funds for the preservation and expansion of bridges, watermains, roads and sewers in Canada, both the productivity and safety of all Canadians will be jeopardized. A Canada-wide infrastructure program would create more jobs than the trade deal alone. It would help develop every region of the country rather than bail out corporations in select communities as this government has done.
PCBs, global warming, wildlife protection, acid rain, ozone depletion and toxic wastes are just a few of the words and catch phrases with which we Canadians are becoming all too familiar. Every day when I watch or read the news I become more and more concerned about living in a world in which the dangers posed by a deteriorating environment and the attendant economic health and social stresses are becoming very serious.
All Canadians want a bright future on this planet for their children, and in my case my grandchildren. To do this we must make global environmental security a cornerstone of Canada's policy.
Historically all three levels of government; municipal, provincial, and federal, have contributed to the costs of financing urban infrastructure. From 1938 to 1984 the federal government made funds available for infrastructure programs. Some of the programs included, from 1938 to 1949, the Municipal Improvement Assistance Act; 1961 to 1974, the Sewage Treatment Program; 1963 to 1966, Municipal Development and Loan Act; 1973 to 1979, the Neighbourhood Improvement Program; 1975 to 1978, the Municipal Infrastructure Program; and 1979 to 1980, the Community Services Contribution Program.
Supply
In those years the governments of Canada had been very committed to the infrastructure of this country. Today's federal government has refused to accept any share of the responsibility for infrastructure, leaving the municipal and provincial governments to struggle with this increasing financial burden.
The government argues that constitutionally they have no responsibility in the areas of infrastructure. It is, however, very important to note that the Constitution does not provide for federal involvement in health care, education or social services, yet they are involved as a major contributor in all these areas. Therefore, how can the federal government deny its responsibility for the environment, clean water, regional and national economic development?
The federal government is not only a badly needed funding partner but it is also in the best position to co-ordinate the establishment of national standards and goals.
The favourite statement coming from the government side of the House these days, and they seem to deliver this statement with great gusto and pleasure, is, "Where is the money going to come from?" Well, I have a few ideas of where it can come from. But in order to provide the minimum national standard of service, intergovernmental funding transfers are required. The federal government is in the best position to co-ordinate the establishment of national standards and goals, and the government often states that cities need only raise their water rates to pay for the rehabilitation of their infrastructure. This is certainly one method and it is certainly done by many municipalities across this country.
However, the water costs of some cities would amount to more than the property taxes in order to generate the revenues required. These are all in areas of the country where they can least afford it. Water rates are only one method. There is another method of user-pay that could be utilized in areas where there are severely neglected roads and bridges. These could be rehabilitated with fees from the users of the transportation system.
The federal government is currently levying heavy taxes on the users of gasoline and diesel fuel but channels none of these revenues into our road systems.

May 25, 1990
Supply
Three, investors will choose particular areas of Canada because of the quality of life and the services the area provides. Investment, in turn, creates jobs and increased assessment for the city, resulting in a flourishing economy.
Four, in depressed regions of Canada an infusion of regional development dollars reduces the UIC and welfare costs and puts people back to work. The old saying of "a dollar spent is a dollar earned" is borne out in this instance.
I would like to comment on a few of the cities or areas of Canada that we visited. In the Vancouver area witnesses stressed that the federal government must stop this ad hocery of repairing Canada's infrastructure. They cited examples of the $200 million spent on the Halifax harbour, which certainly will not clean up the Halifax harbour unless sewage treatment plants are in place. There is the example of the infusion of money along the St. Lawrence River which just happened to be at election time. They said this country is in economic chaos due to crisis mismanagement.
Those were the comments from the city of Vancouver. The pulp mills of British Columbia must be cleaned up and wood preservatives eliminated. Global warming is the number two issue in the world and is closely tied to poor infrastructure due to the regulations.
In Nova Scotia, sewage treatment plants are a rarity. People have to carry their drinking water. Open sewers running into ditches are commonplace.
The lack of services destroy the potential of essential growth. The rural areas of Nova Scotia we visited indicated they are always ignored in favour of big towns and cities such as Dartmouth or Halifax.
The Village of Little Narrows in Nova Scotia has never had potable water. The town of Dominion has a moratorium on development. They cannot meet requests for development due to an inadequate system.
Seven outlets in Cape Breton are pumping raw sewage parallel to one of the finest beaches on Cape Breton Island. Tourism is affected. Listening to witnesses speak about such desolation, one wonders whether we are we really talking about Canada or about a Third World country? But, it is surely Canada.
In Newfoundland they stress four points very strongly. There is a need for access to clean water by all Canadians. There is a need for adequate sewage treatment facilities. There is a need for safe roads and bridges, and there is a need for intergovernmental cost sharing.
As the Mayor of Conception Bay said: "An improved infrastructure would create a cleaner and safer environment, would strengthen the economy of the island of Newfoundland and would expand their standard of living".
We heard from the St. Lawrence Seaway cites of Cornwall and Kingston. Mayor Poirier of Cornwall said the responsibility for infrastructure and its deterioration is accelerating at a rate they can no longer afford.
Mayor Cooper of Kingston said the province of Ontario has ordered them to stop issuing building permits until they upgrade their facilities. Economic survival is the issue.
In northern Ontario, the Mayor of North Bay said it is time the federal government realized that this is not a local issue but a national issue.
All the cities and towns in northern Ontario stress the inadequacy of the Trans-Canada Highway. Truckers cannot compete with their American counterpart, travel time is longer, highway fuel consumption is higher. The young people of the north are moving south. The single-lane highway is alienating the north from the southern portion of Ontario. An adequate four-lane highway with same day delivery to Thunder Bay, Toronto or Detroit will make them far more competitive. In Thunder Bay, the cost of a secondary sewage treatment plant alone will bankrupt the city.
The water system in the nation's capital in the national capital region is a pay as you go system. Over the next 10 years, $10 billion must be spent and raised to cover capital dollars for sewage treatment and water expansion. Maybe people from outside this region will know that there are 10 municipalities that make up the Ottawa-Carleton region and that the city of Ottawa is one of them. In this city alone 18 overflows from the heritage sewers are going directly into the Ottawa River, not to mention the very sensitive nature of the Rideau River and its inherent problems.
May 25, 1990

I have only mentioned a few of the regions in the country, but everywhere the task force visited and in the regions that wrote, the story was abysmal. Only 10 per cent of all raw sewage east of Ontario is treated. Government members should listen to this: only 10 per cent of all raw sewage east of Ontario is treated. More than 8 million Canadians or one-third of the entire population of this country live in municipalities that do not provide sewage treatment. Water quality in Toronto is causing so much concern that some politicians are calling for a $200 million pipeline from Georgian Bay to serve the city.
The value of a water treatment and delivery system now totals a staggering $100 billion. The bill for the next five years for repairing aging, underground pipes alone has been estimated at $3 billion. No level of government in Canada is budgeting for rehabilitation programs of that magnitude.
Beyond speech making from the government side of this House, we have so far seen little federal commitment to the environment. Our rivers and our harbours are polluted from Halifax to Vancouver. Beaches are closed, summer after summer, because the federal government does not make sewer construction and repair a national priority. It is ironic that under the Great Lakes action plan the federal government has recently announced a $125 million fund for the restoration and preservation of this vital water system; this in addition to the almost $1 billion already spent by the government on the Great Lakes since 1972. Yet we are still pumping raw sewage into the Great Lakes system.
There is a cost of doing business. The transportation of goods and services is one important cost to business. Roads in poor condition increase costs, not only through increased use of fuel but through deterioration of vehicles and lost time. Poor roads and lack of waste disposal facilities also add to the costs of businesses, either through increased dump fees or increased costs to have their own waste hauled away. As governments at all levels start placing stricter environmental controls and ask business to bear the costs of its own pollution, business will be able to operate more efficiently in communities that have the infrastructure to handle and treat waste water.
Now that we know Canadians are the least energy efficient consumers in the world. Every possible method
Supply
has to be used to improve our record through sustainable development. The cost of cleaning up our damaged rivers and lakes far exceeds the cost of treating sewage before it gets to these rivers and lakes. Polluters to date have remained unpunished, and the federal government has failed to prosecute a single polluter in Ontario during the past year. The failure to go after polluters has occurred, even though Ottawa has the Canadian Environmental Protection Act which carries a maximum penalty of $1 million.
No single action will be enough to ensure the future health and viability of Canada's infrastructure. A broad range of measures is necessary to make a meaningful difference. Specifically, these should include the following: a federal recognition of municipal infrastructure as a crisis of national proportions; a federal commitment to share the responsibility to rebuild infrastructure with its provincial and municipal counterparts; the establishment of minimum national standards for infrastructure to provide that environmental protection and uniform levels of service for all Canadians; a federal commitment to rehabilitate and expand the Trans-Canada Highway; the establishment of a process through which the federal government can clarify the respective roles of federal, provincial and municipal governments; identify and prio-rize needs on a national scale; increase incentives for maintenance and reconstruction of existing capital assets and the use of low capital; explore alternative funding sources, including such options as more rational user fees for water services; applying fuel tax revenues to road construction and maintenance and increased private sector involvement; increase support for research and development to accelerate technological innovation; promote more efficient municipal management methods to permit phased programs of rehabilitation, better management of infrastructure systems, and more effective use of funds and to reduce waste and excess costs due to delays.
It has been a great privilege for me to travel across the country and talk to Canadians. I heard the desolate response and comments expressed to us in the Liberal task force on Canada's infrastructure.
I have always maintained that everyone in Canada has a right to a roof over their head, food on their table and the very basic amenities of life. Water is probably the

May 25, 1990
Supply
most important one, and sewage treatment is probably second.
How can we sit here in the Parliament of Canada when only 10 per cent of the people east of Ontario have adequate facilities? It is shameful and it is disgraceful. The member for Sault Ste. Marie criticized me, sitting on this side of the House, for being concerned about my fellow Canadians and am trying to do something about it. I would applaud him if he was doing the same. As Canadians, we have got to be aware of the inequities in our system and we must do something about it.
I have thrown the government several ideas on how this can be financed. It is high time we recognized the difference between expenditure and investment. This is an investment in Canada's people; it is an investment in our future, in our children, and in our grandchildren.
As I mentioned earlier, more jobs then under the free trade agreement will be created through this program. I see my colleague here in the House. What could be better for the town of Canso, Nova Scotia, where there was the closure of fish plants, than creating a regional development program in that area. It could put those same people, who have been laid off due to the closure of the fish plants, to work. The same situation exists in Newfoundland. It is not expending government funds because it will be paid back in spades. It will get paid back in jobs, through economic development and the cancellation of welfare and UIC.
It is high time that the government recognized that there are Canadians that are probably less fortunate than we in the House. We have a responsibility as legislators to ensure that Canadians are not living in a third-world type of environment.


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, in listening to the hon. member's comments, one would almost think that all the devastation that she portrays has happened since 1984.
As someone involved in municipal politics for a number of years before being elected to the House-and I know that she has served for a period of time on municipal council as well-I find it regrettable that she does not realize that municipalities have a great responsibility in budgeting their money and in being able to^put
funds aside for upgrading and for water and sewer projects.
The community I came from made certain each year we had the opportunity to advance that responsibility for better drinking water and sewer projects. But politicians at the municipal level do not like that because it is under the ground. They would sooner be putting tennis courts and arenas in, things above the ground, because that gets them re-elected.
We should be dealing with realities and I wish the hon. member would start to deal with reality. The reality is that we started in 1984 as a government and the programs were discontinued by her government back in 1980. She said that 10 per cent of eastern Canada is without sufficient water and sewage. It is very regrettable when she tries to blame this Party and this government for those problems.
I say to the hon. member that she should get her facts straight and remember history. That party was in power for 20 years under great economic times. If she goes back in history, she will see the number of infrastructures put in place in industrial parks that are sitting today with not a thing in them and where federal dollars were spent.
How can she say to the House in all sincerity that the infrastructure problems are a federal issue when she knows quite clearly it belongs to the provinces and the municipalities? I really want to know why she thinks it should be the federal government's responsibility when the responsibility lies with the provinces and municipalities.


Beryl Gaffney: Madam Speaker, the member's statement sounds very simplistic, but it is not that simple.
The programs were in place all of the years that I mentioned. Canada was gradually trying to get out of the trap the municipalities were in. They were making headway. The program has been cancelled since 1982. Does that mean to say that because the program was cancelled by a Liberal government in 1982, it is no reason why I, as a Liberal, would not want to reinstate the program? Come on now.
The member probably comes from a municipality, such as I do, where municipal sewers are up to date. We have arenas, we have everything, because my municipality is well off and his is probably well off, too. But there are eastern municipalities that could not even pay the
May 25, 1990

one-third share. When we said to them, if the federal government pays one-third and the province one-third, can you pay your one-third? They could not pay it.
Travel around the country a little bit and see what is there. Open your eyes. Open your eyes and see what is out there.


An hon. member:: Why could they not pay it?


Beryl Gaffney: They cannot because they do not have job creation, the tax base and the wealth in their municipalities that you and I have.
I find the comment of the member absolutely unconscionable. There is a serious, serious problem in this country. Is the hon. member serious about the environment in this country? For instance, if a city or a town 50 miles down the river is dumping raw sewage into the river, why is that the problem of the municipality 50 miles upriver? It is not, it is a much bigger problem than that. It is a provincial and federal problem.
I fail to understand the insensitivity of the member opposite. I find that regrettable. I am sure the people across the country will find that a very insensitive comment.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate. I got quite excited about getting involved with this when I heard what we would be discussing this afternoon.
We are discussing a motion by a member of the Liberal party that asks the federal government to recognize the crisis that exists in municipal infrastructure. The motion indicates that the problem is serious and affects the nation's environment, economic prosperity and quality of life for Canadians.
Everyone is for quality of life and prosperity of Canadians. When it comes to municipal infrastructure, most of us agree with all the different components that go into making a healthy municipal infrastructure; that bridges are a good thing in municipalities, that water mains are a good idea. We all want good sewage treatment facilities and good local transportation. We all want street lights that work on every street in our community. We all agree with these things, and I would not want anyone to misinterpret any of my future
Supply
comments on the subject. I agree. I want to see good lights on the street where I live, I want to see good sewage treatment, good water mains, garbage pick-up. I want all those things.
What we are really talking about here and what this motion addresses is really the subject of money and who should pay it. It was made very clear by the Liberal party and the New Democratic speakers today that a great chunk of that must come from the federal government, not just the billions of dollars that we transfer now and put into areas that are of benefit to the municipalities, not just what we are doing now, but far more.
One member thundered "the fair share of the federal government." A recent speaker said "the one-third traditional share the federal government pays for areas"-areas which I might add are within municipal and provincial jurisdiction, not federal jurisdiction, exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provinces and the municipalities.
The members of the Liberal party and the NDP thunder "The federal government must pay its fair share, the federal government must pay one-third of these things."
Madam Speaker, I think you and I both know what would happen if a resolution or bill was introduced by the federal government asking the municipalities and the provincial government to pick up a third of federal programs. I think you know the answer to that one. The NDP would scream: "We will bring Parliament to its knees. How dare the federal government suggest that anything in the federal area would be paid for by the provincial and municipal governments." I can see them nodding their heads in agreement. They would fight that to the very end. That would be a terrible thing.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Victoria.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, I think it is not fair ball for the member to describe actions on this side of the House which in fact are not happening and that are entirely misleading to the people in this country. It is not fair ball to do that and I ask you to call the member to order and to make it clear that is not happening.

May 25, 1990
Supply


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member for Niagara Falls will want to make some changes to what he said. I am sure the hon. member for Victoria did not mean that the hon. member was deliberately misleading the House. Let us go on with debate, taking this for granted.


Rob Nicholson: Thank you, Madam Speaker. To be fair to the hon. member, I would be very pleased to know how they would feel about the sharing of all services across the country, and particularly my hypothetical suggestion as to what the reaction of the New Democratic Party would be if we suggested that to the municipalities and provinces. If I am mistaken and they might welcome something like that, I would be very pleased to hear it. I know that the debate will go on for a little bit longer and I would be very pleased if they would address that question.
One of the things in the speeches of the Liberals and the NDP is that there is no mention of the national debt. There is unanimity that the federal government should be spending more money in the areas of municipal jurisdiction. That is unanimous on the other side, but there is no suggestion about the problems of debt. Particularly silent on this of course are the members of the Liberal party because they were the ones who engineered, orchestrated and made up the debt that we are experiencing today.
The hon. member from Hamilton knows that. He knows that when we came to office in 1984 the debt was over $200 billion. He knows that the interest on that puts it well over $300 billion. There is no discussion from the Liberal party as to the national debt in this or in any other forum. The one thing they are very sure of is that they want to spend more money. Well, that is certainly in order from their past performances in this area.
At the same time you do not hear that there is any problem with the national debt, they are unanimous on the subject of tax increases.
On many occasions I heard members of the NDP talk to Parliament about 31 increases in taxes since the Tories came to power. The Liberals have said the same thing. Presumably, they are against those tax increases. They talk about them all the time. They disagree with the number of tax increases.
I always point out that five of those are in the area of increases in the tax on tobacco. Surely that has something to do with the quality of life, but I take the NDP at their word. If they are against all tax changes that the Tories have made in the last six years, I accept that. I disagree with it, because again, it is not coming to reality. It is not coming to grips with the problems that this country is suffering.
What we are talking about here is a question of philosophy. In all these areas, the members of the opposition are not satisfied that anybody else is doing anything or that anybody can be responsible for anything else except the federal government. If it is municipal services, the federal government should pay more. If it is within provincial jurisdiction, the federal government should pay more.
On many occasions, I and other members have pointed out that these are areas within exclusive provincial jurisdiction. They say: "Show leadership. Set national standards. You get in. You take over the area." If it is in the private sector, they say the same thing. It is not good enough to have the private sector ever look after anything, because the federal government should be laying down the law, setting the standards. Above all and most important, it should pay.
As an example, yesterday, I was very pleased during the debate to hear a fine expression of NDP philosophy when it comes to paying. The subject was pre-marital counselling. I challenge an hon member of the NDP to look it up on page 11815 of Hansard. Here is what he asked Parliament. You may remember this, Madam Speaker.
Do we do any pre-marital counselling in the country? Not a whit.
No, there is no chance. On the next page he goes on to say that the state at least can make, among other things, pre-marital counselling available. That is the problem. The state is not paying for it.
It was pointed out to the hon. member that there are many voluntary agencies involved with pre-marital counselling. When it is pointed out to the hon. member or the members of the NDP that the churches and other groups in this country are very involved with pre-marital counselling, it does not count at all. The hon. member says: "Not a whit." It does not exist if the federal government, the state, is not paying for it.
May 25, 1990

That is the philosophy of the members of the New Democratic Party when it comes to anything in the private sector. It is the same as we see in the debate today when it comes to areas within exclusive federal and provincial jurisdiction.
One good example of this is the subject of day care, an area within exclusive provincial jurisdiction and one into which the federal government, quite rightly, pours hundreds of billions of dollars through the Canada Assistance Program. We provide tax benefits through the Income Tax Act to help middle income Canadians afford day care. But it is not enough for the members of the New Democratic Party.
I was sitting with the hon. member for Erie on a child care task force a couple of years ago, and he started listening to all the different ideas that the NDP had in the area of provincial jurisdiction. He said to me: "I think what the NDP is proposing is going to cost about $20 billion." He said: "The NDP must have a real big bank account to pay for all of this." Except for the part that I know they do not like banks, I knew the point he was trying to make, that it is not good enough that the federal government contribute as it is doing. It is never enough if it is in an area of provincial jurisdiction.
I challenged a group of students on one of the things in this area. I had the pleasure to be at Governor Simcoe High School in St. Catharines a couple of weeks ago discussing the subject of the GST. There were the usual groups who are against the GST. They are fighting the GST. Of course, they were very weak I thought in the areas as to what we would come up with for alternatives, or how we would balance the budget.
I threw out a challenge to the students of that school. I said: "I have sat in Parliament for six years." I challenged the members of that high school and I challenge the members of this House: Pick up Hansard from any day within the last six years and come up with one day that the NDP has not been suggesting that we spend more money that we do not have in some other area. What day did they not want to spend more of the government's money? That is the challenge I issued to them.
I ask the hon. member to find me a Hansard of the last six years where the NDP was not advocating that we spend more money on top of the national debt that
Supply
exists. The NDP and Liberal philosophy is just more, more and more.
The NDP, quite apart from their enthusiastic support of this Liberal motion for increased municipal infrastructure costs, has asked in the last few months for more money for the Post Office to abolish supermailboxes. They want a youth initiative program for $1.5 billion. They want the federal government to start spending more money on UIC. They want to increase foreign aid, increase the child tax credits, increase the spousal allowances, more money to CBC, and more money on social housing.
I was just talking with the Minister of State for Housing. We put $1.8 billion into housing. Of course, if you sit in the opposition, money is no problem. It is never enough. It should be doubled and quadrupled. Ten billion dollars is not enough for day care, it should be $20 billion for day care.
Our friends in the Liberal party are not far behind. They want more for all the things the NDP want, plus agriculture, post-secondary education, housing, spousal allowances, research and development, and on and on in a country that has a $350 billion debt, and at a time when the government is honestly, with the taxpayers' money, trying to come to grips with this problem.
You heard what was described as a lover's quarrel here recently, Madam Speaker, as to whether the Liberals used to pay for municipal infrastructure. On this debate on that particular quarrel, I want to tell you that I side with the Liberals.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: A point of order, the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, the motion in front of us states: "That this House call upon the government to recognize that Canada's municipal infrastructure is facing a crisis of national proportions-"
I am afraid it is an over-extension of the imagination to even conceive that the member opposite is making any rational sense with respect to the motion before us. I think, clearly-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sure there will be a full moon tonight, even if it is not the right time of the month. We should not be that strict about the rule of relevancy. I am sure the hon. member for Niagara Palls

May 25, 1990
Supply
was just about to come back and bring it closer to the motion at hand. The hon. member.


Rob Nicholson: The Minister of State for Housing says my remarks were right on. If it is $1.9 billion we spent on housing, then I stand corrected.
This motion is talking about spending the federal government's money and that is what I have addressed all my comments to.
I want to specifically make comments on the lover's quarrel that took place before lunch between the Liberals and the NDP. The NDP made accusations to the Liberals that they were cutting back spending money on municipal infrastructure when they were in power and the members of the Liberal party took exception to that.
I was just about to say, before I was interrupted, that that is one area where I actually agree with the Liberals. I know of no area in Canadian society where the Liberals did not spend all kinds of money-not money we had, mind you, but all kinds of money. I do not think there is any area the NDP could mention that there were not federal Liberal dollars going into before 1984.
There is one point I want to make about that spending and it is on the subject of municipal infrastructure. In my riding of Niagara Falls, I am very pleased to have a secondary water pollution control plant. The announcement for that and the commitment of the federal government was made by the previous government prior to 1984. Out of $12 million, I believe that the federal commitment was $4 million. The government changed in 1984 and the commitment, of course, remained. I was very pleased to go to the opening of this plant.
One municipal politician said to me that it was the Liberals who promised us the money for this. I said that that was true, but that it would be the Conservative Minister of Finance who will figure out where the money is coming from. What do you get more credit for? The Liberals were using the national credit card for all those years, and it was smoking in those months before 1984. A lot of credit has to go the the Minister of Finance. It is his job to pay for those municipal infrastructures that were promised by the previous government. He is the one who is going to have to figure it out. He is doing a marvellous job. All Canadians should applaud that.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, I see that my time is just about over.


Some hon. members:: More, more.


Rob Nicholson: Thank you. If I have the unanimous consent of the House to continue, I would certainly be pleased to do so.
The government took office in 1984, as you will remember, Madam Speaker. The Minister of Labour indicated to the House this morning that at that time there was a $16 billion operating deficit left over. Of course that is as a result of those spending practices I made mention of a minute ago.
The great thing about the finances of this country, and this was mentioned in the The Economic Prosperity of Canada, obviously a pretty important component of that is the government's ability to turn that operating deficit around into an operating surplus. If it had not been for that deficit that we inherited in 1984, we would have more money for all those wonderful projects that we have heard about every single day for the last six years coming from the opposition. We would have had more money for them, if we had not overspent in the 1970s and the early 1980s.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: You've doubled it since with your incompetence.


Rob Nicholson: All of us want all the good things in life. We all want everything from better pensions, more social services to better street lights. It is always just a question, in my opinion, of who should pay for them.
Madam Speaker, you have heard the member who introduced the motion. He is from Ontario, as I am. The situation in Ontario is that Queen's Park runs at a surplus. For the last two budgets it has run at a surplus. They make money down at Queen's Parks. All municipalities in Ontario, in his province, are required not to operate at a deficit.
There is a situation of areas within exclusive municipal and provincial jurisdiction where the decision has been made. Members of the NDP know that municipalities have to operate on a break-even basis. The member who introduced the motion knows that his own province is running at a surplus now. He has decided: "No. The best one to pay for municipal and provincial services is, of
May 25, 1990

course, the federal government". It is $350 billion in debt".
The member for Carleton-Gloucester had a rallying cry. He said: "There are 60 former municipal politicians in this House. They should all get behind this thing". I can tell the members opposite that when you come to the House of Commons you are not here to be lobbying on behalf of municipal councils. You are here for the best interests of all Canadians.
Members of the opposition say: "Do not raise taxes. Do not make cuts. Spend a lot more. The deficit is your problem". That is not a recipe that I think Canadians are going to buy. I do not think it is ultimately going to sell. I think, ultimately, that is why the Progressive Conservatives are on this side of the House and they have for many years now been on that side of the House.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: On question or comments, the hon. member for Victoria.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, while the member was going on we had a vote among members on this side of the House. We decided we would award the member the prize for the best high school debater in this debate so far.
He has waxed enthusiastic, but he has missed the fundamental point, which is that there has been a long tradition in this country of federal government leadership when national programs are necessary.
Even his own government has provided funds for sewage treatment in Halifax and Quebec City, for example. It has provided funds for municipal infrastructure, but on an ad hoc basis so that it can dole it out at the time of election campaigns.
What is important about the proposal of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is that there be a planned national campaign in partnership with all levels of government which recognizes the responsibilities of all levels of government, not just for municipal services, but for the rivers, lakes and oceans into which sewage is flowing because of the antiquated system we have in this country.
This debate and the speech of the hon. member gives me an opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the situation in my own area in greater Victoria. Over 100 years of growth in the area has been accompanied by
Supply
a failure to keep up with the disposal of waste that grows in industrial areas.
In this sense we are in common in keeping with so many other municipalities. We have sewage disposal facilities, but they were developed 20 and 30 years ago, and in some cases much longer ago than that. It was an age when we were far less conscious of the requirements to keep a clean environment and not to make the environment any worse for what we have taken from it.
Clearly, what has been identified now in our community is a requirement that we stop pumping raw sewage into the ocean. It is an ocean which, I may say, comes under federal jurisdiction. The federal government clearly has a responsibility in this area, as it recognized in the case of Halifax where it put up $100 million to clean up Halifax harbour. If it can do that for Halifax and Quebec City, then it can do it for Victoria and for other communities across the country.
I am surprised in fact now to hear the government speaking against it. When the Prime Minister came into our area during the last election campaign he was not against it. Conservatives in our area who ran-unfortunately for them a losing cause, but they still ran and put up a good fight-committed the Conservative Party and for those who vote for it to a federal-provincial-municipal infrastructure campaign.
I fail to understand how those who are close to the government are here speaking against this motion.
The capital regional district did a study recently.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member was recognized on a question or a comment, not on debate.


John F. Brewin: I will conclude my comments then, Madam Speaker, very quickly.
We have this important report which outlines the problem in our area. I would call on the government to pay attention to it and to see it as a good example of why a federal contribution in this area is so essential.


Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the Halifax harbour clean-up, as well as that of the St. Lawrence. I can mention to him as well money going into the Niagara area and the Great Lakes area as well-in fact into all areas of pollution.

May 25, 1990
Supply
I agree with the hon. member on this. The problems of pollution are not within any particular level of government's exclusive jurisdiction. It is all our responsibility.
One member of the Liberal party even commended the government for spending money in Elalifax and some other of these areas. I guess that is the point.
The federal government is involved. We transfer billions of dollars to the provincial governments. We have many joint projects, everything from the environment to agriculture. I mentioned the Minister of State for Housing, who is to my right, who committed $1.8 billion a year to housing, these are substantial sums of money.
One of the things that the members of the New Democratic Party never seem to realize is that all of them are great ideas-all of them. It is always just a question of how much money and how quickly we can put money into these worth-while projects.
As I say, I am quite sure that for members of the NDP $1.8 billion is not enough for housing. I am sure $3.6 billion, $7.4 and $14 billion is not half enough for the members of the NDP. But the responsibility of the Minister of Finance is to balance the very legitimate concerns of all Canadians and all areas, and at the same time try to ensure that the Government of Canada does not end up bankrupt trying to do it.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, the member has discussed the role of federal involvement in what may be interpreted as being both municipal and provincial matters. He has reflected upon the fact that in many cases, as it may be perceived, the federal government may in fact be overstepping its jurisdiction. That might actually be the case, if it were a matter that the federal government came in against the wishes of the provinces or the municipalities. The member knows full well that both municipalities and provinces throughout Canada had been requesting strong federal initiatives in terms of the assistance required in developing municipal infrastructure, particularly in the areas of waste management and water management. I want to point out to the member that his own government has, in fact, recognized the need for this type of initiative.
I remind him of the federal government's water policy which was tabled in 1987. It states that "the federal government intends to work with the provinces and
territories to encourage the provision of safe and sufficient water supplies for Canadians". That is a quote right out of the federal water policy. It goes on to state that the over-all goal of the federal water policy is to "encourage the use of freshwater in an efficient and equitable manner, consistent with social, cultural and environmental needs". It then identifies two major objectives to achieve that goal: To protect and enhance the quality of the water resource, both in supply and disposal; and, to promote the wise and efficient use of water.
This is a stated initiative in the federal water policy of the government to get involved at the regional and provincial levels with assistance for such programs as water supply and waste management.
It is beyond me to sit and listen to the arguments presented by the member on the government side that this is not a federal responsibility when in fact this very same government has made those initiatives and committed itself, I might add, to do such.
I will extend the argument one more step. Although that has been stated in the federal water policy document, I might provide further evidence for the benefit of the member that that document continues to be a vacuous philosophical tool. It can be used by this government but has no legislation to back it up.
We on this side of the House say that it is time the government put its money where its mouth is. It has made that commitment to the provinces and to the regions within those provinces to get involved in the problems of water management, water supply and waste disposal. It is right there in the document. The member must recognize that.
The government has to recognize that, if it wants to maintain the quality of life that Canadians are used to throughout the country, it has to take the bull by the horns. It has to get involved in these kinds of initiatives that will maintain the environmental quality, not only of our oceans, but of our lakes and inland waters which are also being affected by waste and untreated sewage.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: On a short comment, the hon. member for Niagara Falls.


Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, the member was quoting from some document. He must have forgotten about the part where the
May 25, 1990

Government of Canada has and is spending hundreds of millions of dollars specifically in this area.
I told you, Madam Speaker, that the $4 million that went into the secondary water pollution control plant in Niagara Falls was for clean water. This is to help in the area. The millions of dollars that we are spending in the Great Lakes is for clean water. The money that is being spent in Halifax is for clean water. We are doing those things. We have done them in the past.
We are even trying to pay for the ones that were done before 1984, the ones that were all on the credit card. We will pay for those and we will pay for the ones that we are doing at the present time, as well as those we will do in the future.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I must interrupt the hon. member. The time for questions and comments has now expired.


Mark Joseph Assad: Madam Speaker, the opposition motion now under consideration reads as follows:
That this House call upon the government to recognize that Canada's municipal infrastructure is facing a crisis of national proportions and that, given the serious implications to the nation's environment, economic prosperity and quality of life for Canadians, the government resume its traditional role as a partner with the provincial and municipal governments to address this national crisis.
I would suggest that any Canadian familiar with the municipal infrastructure issue will agree with this motion.
First, Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate two of my colleagues who created and worked with this task force, the hon. member for Nepean (Mrs. Gaffney) and the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Harb).
Naturally each of us in his or her respective region was glad to co-operate and work with municipal councils to examine infrastructures, budgets, and improvements to be undertaken. The mayors and municipal councillors in my riding of Gatineau-La Lievre were invited to attend and, much to my surprise, the most pressing issue was the funding required to make improvements or, at the very least, upgrade of the municipal infrastructure to acceptable levels. This makes you think, of course. But
Supply
when we consider the amounts required for one Canadian region alone it soon becomes patently clear that there has been a lot of negligence over the years, no matter which government was in office at the time. It is so obvious that I had to reflect upon the matter.
Four or five years ago, as I was reading letters to the editor in the well-known New York Times, I spotted an article by a professor of the highly respected Columbia University who had made an exhaustive study throughout the United States-their situation can be compared to ours, I would think-and concluded that the American municipal infrastructure situation was alarming. Not worrisome, alarming! Roadways, bridges and municipal infrastructures generally were in an unbelieveble state of disrepair, and this was four or five years ago. They say the bill to upgrade infrastructures would amount to something like $500 billion, if you can imagine! This gives you an idea of what needs to be done to bring municipal infrastructures up to more satisfactory levels. Nor can we ignore the fact that there has been negligence.
I remember that spokesmen for the Union des municipality du Quebec came to Ottawa to meet members of the various caucuses. The former mayor of Quebec City was there, as were representatives of the City of Montreal, Sherbrooke and other localities. They gave us a rundown on the situation in their respective municipalities, and indeed there is cause for great concern. From all this we can only conclude that the municipal infrastructure upgrading process is a major undertaking.

I just want to bring out one point. This should be an ongoing operation. Programs should not arrive on the eve of an election. It should be an ongoing process.
I am convinced, when the whole infrastructure deteriorates to the point it is getting to now, that it even has adverse effects on the fabric of our society. I do not think that is an exaggeration. It is a fact.
It is remarkable to think that a country such as Canada has 25 per cent of all the fresh water in the world and the Province of Quebec has 15 per cent of all the fresh water in the world. Yet we are beginning to see problems concerning the supply of fresh water. Can one imagine what is going on in the rest of the world? How did we get to this point?

May 25, 1990
Supply
We must say that the way in which we have handled waste management and sewage treatment has compounded our problems. Therefore, when it comes to municipal infrastructure, regardless of the government, the federal government, which obviously has the resources, along with the provincial and municipal governments, should form a team. We should not say that the provincial government will have precedence over the federal government or vice versa. It is a joint effort, and it is extremely important. I am sure that Canadians from coast to coast are concerned about it.
I do not think it is a surprise to say that the environment and the infrastructure go hand in hand.
We have seen this neglect over the years. We are coming to the point where we are going to have to reconsider how we have handled the whole situation of municipal infrastructure.
It can be said that, if it gets to this point of deterioration, then it practically comes under peace, order, and good government. It is such an essential element for all our municipalities and towns that we cannot let it become the whim of political parties. They cannot say, on the eve of elections, that they are going to invest x number of billions of dollars.

Madam Speaker, I remember the early 1970s when I had the pleasure to represent the riding of Papineau in the National Assembly. It was a time of great prosperity. We had funds at our disposal. I remember that they were good years in that regard and we ended each year without a deficit, even for current expenditures. At that time, we invested in municipal infrastructure, but maybe not enough. I remember the sewers, viaducts, aqueducts and so on. If a good part of this country's deficit had been for our municipal infrastructure, it would be much easier for us to take.
There has been neglect and we have come to a point where it is essential for all levels of government to join together. We must look into this issue because, as I said, it affects the very structure of our society. It is extremely important for it to be an ongoing process of making sure that municipal infrastructure throughout Canada will never again be neglected. Every municipality must have a continuing stock of municipal infrastructure not only for the security of our fellow citizens but for a healthy
environment, which definitely affects our human behaviour.
There is nothing magic about that, except that it is always a matter of having the necessary political will. People expect us to take such initiatives. It will obviously be very expensive but there are choices to be made and this one is a priority in a modem society like ours which needs the technology.
In closing, Madam Speaker, I hope this motion will encourage every political party in this House to develop a policy on the municipal infrastructure issue, not to buy votes but to assess with objectivity the situation across the country and make a commitment not to let it deteriorate as it has done in the past 20 years.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, I listened to my Liberal colleague and I think that a lot of his arguments are most pertinent.
I think he would agree with my comments that, in large measure, the government has been preoccupied with the big ticket items that have been facing the country: free trade; the GST; and, now, trying to put spit and polish on its Constitution, wringing its hands over the situation with the Meech Lake Accord. Meanwhile, while we are looking at these big ticket items, it is the nuts and bolts that have continued to rust, the very problems that face our many municipalities in Canada. I think the member would also agree that the government has been pleading poverty, faced with a terrible, burdensome debt.
Yet, the member knows as well as any member in the House that during the last election this same government promised the taxpayers of Canada some $20 billion in election goodies. That is what the price-tag was, $20 billion. Read my lips.
After the election, we are suddenly faced with a terrible debt. But during the election, the Minister of Finance never even recognized that there was a debt problem.
I want to ask the member-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately, the hon. member will not have time to ask his question and the hon. member will not have time to answer the question.
May 25, 1990

Supply

It being three o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 81(17), to inform the House that proceedings on the motion have now expired.
This House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.mu, pursuant to the order made earlier today.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 28, 1990