1990-02-20

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


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



Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to table two petitions, one from Matagami and one from Lebel-sur-Quevillon, which reject the recommendations of the Tax Force on Tax Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas.
Your petitioners, who represent the isolated areas of Matagami and Lebel-sur-Quevillon in the Abitibi area, feel that although isolation is mainly a psychological factor, it can be expressed in dollars and cents.
Mr. Speaker, the residents of these communities believe that the task force has failed to allow for the daily realities in the North and the near North in the Abitibi area.


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to table two petitions which have been signed by my constituents of Brandon-Souris. The first petition is from members of the Brandon University community, faculty and students alike. They call upon Parliament to urge the government to honour its commitment to child care and to provide a comprehensive quality, accessible and affordable child care program for Canada.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from a number of my constituents who indicate their support for Parliament enacting legislation which will protect human life from conception to natural death.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty to table a petition which has been certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions.
This petition on budget day brings to the attention of this House the grave injustice that will be put on Canadians with this 7 per cent tax on goods and services. These petitioners would like to make sure the House knows that they object to this hidden tax, that they think this will cause serious and unfair hardship to low and middle-income Canadians, that the imposition of the GST will create an onerous burden on small business and that this is indeed an unprecedented tax grab from the pockets of Canadians that will not only mean higher taxes but will bring in higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment.
These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.

February 20, 1990
Routine Proceedings CHILD CARE


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present to the House with your indulgence today.
The first one is signed by 31 members of the child care faculty of the University of Victoria. It is signed out of concern for the federal government's lack of initiatives in child care. These are professionals who are very concerned and aware of the vacuum in Canadian policy. On this day that the budget is to be presented, I present this petition signed by professionals in the field who know very well the kind of harm that comes from having that vacuum in Canadian policy.


Lynn Hunter: The second petition I would like to present is signed by 75 of my constituents, particularly from the Gulf Islands, Salt Spring Island. It relates to the whole problem of driftnet fishing. The petitioners ask that all possible means be used to stop the use of driftnets in the north Pacific, including the institution of economic sanctions against the offending countries and the placing of prohibitive tariffs and duties on imports to Canada from those countries.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, the third petition I have is signed, once again, by my constituents and talks about the relation of the tax system to Canadian women who file tax returns. Fifty per cent of Canadian women have incomes of $10,000 per year or less, compared to only 23 per cent of men.
Whereas thousands of Canadian women living in poverty pay income taxes the petitioners ask that the government introduce a tax system that is simpler and fairer to average Canadians and which establishes a better balance between corporate and personal taxes. They ask that the government restore indexation to the child tax credit.
Once again, on the day the budget is going to be coming down, this is a very important message to the government.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, the next petitions I have relate to VIA Rail. They
contain 250 signatures of people from my constituency who talk about the lack of federal resources to VIA Rail and the importance of a passenger rail system to Canada. They say that the government should be working to upgrade VIA Rail equipment and give VIA Rail a sufficient budget to maintain its national mandate for passenger service.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, the next petition I have is signed by over 300 of my constituents and relates to the goods and services tax. The petitioners ask that the government cease this proposal that will shift the tax burden on to ordinary Canadians through this regressive, consumptive tax instead of real tax reform.


Lynn Hunter: Finally, Mr. Speaker, this petition has upward of 250 signatures of my constituents and talks about the situation in El Salvador. As we heard in the news yesterday, the Government of El Salvador is once again bombing civilian targets in the city of San Salvador.
These petitioners ask that the Government of Canada utilize the full potential of Canada's position at the United Nations and as a member of the OAS, to pursue an independent diplomatic policy leading to the full protection of human rights and a peaceful resolution of the conflict in El Salvador.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, there are many petitions against the goods and services tax and I am pleased to have the honour to add another one from the Kamloops constituency.
With these petitioners' signatures there are a total 17,257 from the Kamloops area alone. Today's petition is signed by representatives of the Kamloops and District Teachers Association and the Caribou College Faculty Association, as well as the communities of Westwold, Dallas, Valleyview, Monte Lake, Pritchard, Barnhart Vale, Turtle Valley, Highland Valley, Deadman's Creek and Monte Creek.
They have a long list of grievances with reference to the goods and services proposal and are asking that the Parliament of Canada do whatever it can to stop the tax from becoming a reality.
February 20, 1990


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition on another issue from the residents of Little Fort, British Columbia, who are concerned about the federal-provincial forest resource development agreement that has yet to be signed.
I am pleased to see that the minister is here. I will direct this point to him. The petitioners point out that the forest industry of Canada is Canada's pre-eminent industry in terms of export earnings. They point out the advantages of the present agreement in terms of providing employment as well as regenerating our forests and they ask Parliament to renew this important agreement with British Columbia and thereby provide for a renewed commitment to restocking our forest land, advancing forest research, promoting silviculture and assisting the forest industry in developing the new products and markets that will provide us with forestry jobs in the future.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I also am honoured to present a petition which expresses the views of many Canadians opposing the goods and services tax because it is an unfair form of taxation which disregards the taxpayers' ability to pay. The government has not addressed the unfair tax system which permits wealthy individuals and corporations to pay little or no federal tax. It is taxing a number of things such as reading, haircuts, diapers, coffins and home heating fuels.
Therefore, the petitioners call on Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax and to bring in a tax system that is more effective, including a minimum tax on wealthy individuals. They say that this reform must not be an opportunity for the government to impose a massive tax grab.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition approximately 1,600 signatures from all parts of my constituency and a number of adjoining constituencies, all making the case that the current proposal for a goods and services tax is not acceptable to them.
In their view, reform of the tax system to provide an effective, minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corpo-
Routine Proceedings
rations is more important and if there is a change in taxation there should be a broad public consensus with respect to such change. In this case, the only consensus is a consensus in opposition to this government's changes.


Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36. It is signed by 632 constituents of my riding of Cochrane-Superior and, more specifically, from the town of Manitouwadge.
These residents are very concerned about a task force report on tax benefits for northern and isolated areas. This task force would see some 37 communities in my riding no longer eligible for the tax benefit.
Manitouwadge is 45 miles north of Highway 17 and well over 400 kilometres from the town of Thunder Bay. Therefore, the petitioners from Manitouwadge call upon Parliament to reject this task force report in its totality.


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty to present to this House a petition from my constituents. It seems most appropriate on this budget day that the citizens of Canada from London are asking this government to scrap the proposed goods and services tax which will cause undue hardship to small business, seniors, students and people in lower income groups. They ask the government to rescind its action on the GST.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions to the House today, one from Saanich in the Victoria area and another signed by residents from all across British Columbia who, on this very important budget day, are also asking the federal government to ensure that the federal-provincial forest agreement between this Parliament and the government in Victoria is signed to ensure that we can get the replanting that is needed in our deforested lands.
The minister is here today. He knows our concerns and he knows what we are looking for in the budget tonight to ensure that agreement is signed.

February 20, 1990
Point of Order GOODS AND SERVICES TAX


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 from my adopted city of Windsor. It is properly certified.
The citizens of Windsor pray that the government will reconsider, reassess and rethink its position with respect to the imposition of the goods and services tax that it plans to put in place on the backs of the Canadian people on January 1, 1991.
These people pray that the government will reconsider its position and assess a different type of taxation rather than a consumer tax.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a number of petitions against the goods and services tax from a number of different provinces and a number of different cities including Winnipeg and Selkirk, Manitoba, Comox, B.C. and many places in Alberta.
In the various petitions these citizens explain that they are concerned with the goods and services tax proposed by the Minister of Finance. They believe it is an unfair form of taxation because it lacks any regard for the taxpayers' ability to pay. They believe that the government has not addressed the unfair taxation system currently in place which permits wealthy individuals and corporations to pay little or no federal tax while forcing lower or middle income taxpayers to bear more of the national tax burden.
Therefore, these Canadians humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject this tax and call upon the federal government to institute a regime of fair taxation.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 from a number of residents of Ottawa West, primarily senior citizens, who are concerned about the impact of the new goods and services tax on their ability to enjoy their retirement years in reasonable comfort and financial independence. They pray that Parliament reject the proposed goods and services tax.


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


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As the parliamentary secretary knows, before the Christmas break I asked if I was going to get an answer to my question with regard to moneys that the government has given to various corporations that have Senators as members. He at that time explained that it was a complicated issue. However, it has now been approximately four months since that question was given to the government. I would certainly like to know if we are going to get that information.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if I am correct I think the hon. member is referring to Question No. 169. Answers have been drafted to that question. It is just going through the final translation and approval stages.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a short point of order regarding the budget presentation for later today.
Mr. Speaker, I would request that you review the rules governing the presentation of the budget and consider whether those rules provide for a 10-minute question and comment period to follow the delivery of the budget in the House by the Minister of Finance.
I would like to bring to your attention a few brief previous rulings on questions and comments in the hopes that you will find that it was clear in terms of the intention of the House that such a question and comment period be held when the relevant Standing Orders were originally adopted.
Standing Order 84(7) governs time limits and comments on speeches during the budget debate. It says:
No Member, except the Minister of Finance, the Member
speaking first on behalf of the Opposition, the Prime Minister and
the Leader of the Opposition, shall speak for more than twenty
minutes at a time in the Budget Debate. Following the speech of
February 20, 1990

each member a period not exceeding ten minutes shall be made available, if required, to allow Members to ask questions and comment briefly on matters relevant to the speech and to allow responses thereto.
Mr. Speaker, the wording of this Standing Order is virtually identical to that of Standing Order 52 which governs another special debate in the House, the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
In considering then whether there can be questions and comments following the budget speech, it is quite pertinent to look to rulings regarding the nearly identically worded provisions for the address in reply.
For example, on December 9, 1983, the then Leader of the Opposition, who is currently our Prime Minister, replied to the Throne Speech. Following his comments my colleague, who is currently the member for Winnipeg Transcona, rose and attempted to direct a question. The then government House Leader interjected and asked the Speaker whether a question period was in order. He said:
As a Leader of the Opposition and the Right Hon. Prime Minister may speak for an unlimited time I should like you to make your position clear on this issue, that we may know where we stand in the future.
The Deputy Speaker was quite clear on this point when he said:
I shall quote from (the) Standing Order-which reads as follows:
Following the speech of each Member a period not exceeding ten minutes shall be made available -
That is strictly according to the rules. There has, however, been a practice of extending a courtesy which has normally been extended and the question period has been waived. However, according to the rules, the Hon. Member has the right to pose a question.
Following this clarification my colleague, out of courtesy, deferred his question. Nonetheless there was a clear ruling that according to the rules there is a right to pose a question.
So well understood was this right that when Journals branch published a chart of the time limits on speeches and debates in June 1984, it included on the chart the clear indication that questions and comments could be asked following the speeches of the Minister of Finance, the minister speaking first on behalf of the opposition, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
Point of Order
I have circulated to my hon. colleagues, the government House leader and yourself, as well as the House leader for the Official Opposition, the diagram that was submitted in 1984 by the Journals branch which makes it very clear that under the budget debate, whether it is the Minister of Finance or the minister speaking first on behalf of the opposition, the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition, while they have no time limit on their speeches, very clearly there is an opportunity to ask questions or make comments on their presentations.
You probably recall, Mr. Speaker, that that Journals publication of 1984 followed the 1982 report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedures. The Minister of Justice, the Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds, the member for Burin-St. George's, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the member for Winnipeg Transcona and the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace are current members in the House who served on that special committee. After examining the proceedings, it is perfectly clear that their recommendations intended that the 10 minute question and comment period follow the lead addresses of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Official Opposition and so on.
Apparently this new interpretation that people have followed is based on a ruling given on June 7, 1985. During the debate on the Meech Lake Accord on that day, following the comments of the then Leader of the Official Opposition, the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, the then Minister of Justice rose and asked if he could ask a question. The Acting Speaker ruled that a question could not be put. He ruled as follows: "The first three speakers have unlimited time and I believe those who have unlimited time do not have a question or comment period, in accordance with Standing Order 35(1)."
Standing Order 35(1) is now found in two Standing Orders, Standing Order 43 and Standing Order 74. Standing Order 43 begins: "Unless otherwise provided in these Standing Orders-" and proceeds to define the question and comment period that follows speeches during motions.
As I have just explained, it is otherwise provided in the Standing Orders that such a provision is made for the budget speech specifically.

February 20, 1990
Point of Order
I am not certain it was the intention of the House in adopting the changes which created comment and question periods that ministers of the Crown, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Official Opposition would be protected from any rebuttal in the House. Certainly the first comments of a Speaker on these changes made no such clarification or qualification.
The Speaker of the day, Madam Speaker Sauve, said on January 17, 1983, as the rules were adopted on a one-year experimental basis only:
The first -is a fundamental one which will directly affect the debating practices of the House. The introduction of a 10-minute period during which questions may be asked and comments made concerning the speech of the hon. member who has just spoken is likely to bring about a radical change in the way in which our debates are conducted. The 10-minute periods will be available to members during most key debates, including those on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the budget, allotted days and the second and third readings of bills.
Madam Sauve in her position as Speaker referred to no qualifications on the ability to pose questions following the speeches of our House's most important and prominent members.
In conclusion I would like to address why such questions should in fact be permitted.
First, it is a question of accountability. In the British Parliament there is a tradition of giving way which allows members to gain the floor briefly and rebut misleading or ambiguous statements in one another's speeches. This giving way has its own protocol but is extended to all ranks in the House; front benches as well as back benches.
Second, there is the question of fairness. Under the current interpretation there is no rebuttal to the speeches of the leaders or the first speakers of the government and Official Opposition, but other opposition members are quite properly held accountable through a question and comment period. We accept that minority parties are deprived of many of the privileges of the other two parties, but I ask whether this is a justifiable inequity.
In conclusion, I ask that you review, Mr. Speaker, my comments and then inform the House before the delivery of the budget later today whether or not questions will be permitted as provided for in Standing Order 84(7).


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kamloops has raised an important point of order. I think that it would be best to consider carefully the points the hon. member has made.
Is the hon. parliamentary secretary seeking the floor?


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, we on the government side did wish to intervene, but I will yield the floor to my hon. friend from the Liberal Party to give him a chance to make his argument.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, since we had notice of the intention of the hon. member for Kamloops to raise this matter, I have had an opportunity to review some of the authorities, some of which he cited and other which appear in the Annotated Standing Orders, to assist the Chair in making a ruling on this point.
Without reviewing in detail the precedent raised in the 1983 Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne debate raised by the hon. member for Kamloops, I want to deal with the more recent precedents. There are four I have been able to find that deal with this issue.
The first was on March 27,1985. In looking at this I ask Your Honour to bear in mind that Standing Order 84(7) is virtually identical in its wording with three other standing orders: Standing Order 43, Standing Order 74 and Standing Order 50(2) in so far as they deal with the question of questions and comments following speeches.
The words of the rule in my submission are quite clear. I think that the four precedents I am about to cite support the interpretation. I stress the words, particularly in French, because perhaps they are clearer than they are in English. If you do not mind, Mr. Speaker, I will quote the French reference in Standing Order 84(7), which states:

No Member, except the Minister of Finance, the Member speaking first on behalf of the Opposition, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, shall speak for more than twenty minutes at a time in the Budget Debate. Following the speech of each Member-
February 20, 1990



Tout depute, in other words refers to those members who are included in the rule, not the ones excluded. The reference to aucun depute at the beginning of the rule and tout depute afterward in my submission means those members included in the rule, not those excluded by the words. Every one of the rules I have cited, that is Standing Orders 43, 74 and 50(2), are written in the same way in English and in French. However, the use of those words in French, I submit, bears out the interpretation I think is intended to be given to the English rule; that is to say, the rule applies to all those members except the ones excluded. That interpretation has been followed through in my submission very consistently, aside from the 1983 precedent.
I refer Your Honour to March 27, 1985, as reported at page 3423 of Hansard for that day. The question under discussion was second reading of a bill under what is now Standing Order 74.
The question arose as to whether any questions could be asked of a person who had made a 40-minute speech permitted under that rule; one of the speeches usually made by the mover of the motion, the first person speaking on behalf of the Official Opposition and the second person speaking for another party in opposition. The Acting Speaker on that occasion, the hon member for Edmonton North said:
Under Standing Order 35(2) you are entitled, if you are going to be speaking for the party, to speak for 40 minutes. There are no questions for the first three speakers.
Subsequently, on June 7, 1985, as reported at pages 5550 and 5551 of Hansard, there was a debate proceeding on a motion to amend the Constitution. I think my hon. friend from Kamloops has referred to this already.
On page 5551, following the speech of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, there was a question raised as to whether or not questions and comments could be put to him. The Acting Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton North, a member of this House today and also one of our Acting Speakers, said:
May I just have the floor for a minute? The first three speakers have unlimited time and I believe those who have unlimited time do not have a question or comment period, in accordance with
Point of Order
Standing Order 35(1). After that, there are 20-minute speeches plus the question and comment period.
It so happened that there was a continuing discussion among the members at the time, but that was the ruling of the Chair, however brief, on June 7, 1985.
Following that, on April 9, 1986 the Competition Tribunal Act was under discussion in the House. The question of questions and comments came up again following the speech of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. The Speaker said, as reported at page 12053 of Debates for that particular day:
It is entirely up to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, but our practice has been that those speakers who have unlimited time have not been subject, under the rules, to the 10-minute question and comment period.
Subsequently on June 22, 1987, as reported at pages 7477 and 7478 of Hansard, there were further comments made in respect of this matter following a speech by the right hon. Prime Minister during the debate on capital punishment.
The hon. member for York Centre rose on a point of order and said:
Every member who speaks on this resolution is subject to being questioned by other members of the House after he concludes his remarks. I realize that under the rules the Prime Minister is exempted from that requirement. However, he is participating in this debate, which is not a government measure and which requires a free vote. He is participating as a private member.
Therefore, I wonder if he might agree and there may be unanimous consent to have the normal question and answer period that is applied to all other members.
There was not unanimous consent. The Speaker went on to comment on that intervention and he said, as reported on page 7478 of Hansard:
I think in the interests of informing all hon. members and the public which is watching and listening to this debate, that it should be made very clear that under the rules, for party leaders and the right hon. Prime Minister, there is no mandatory provision whereby the usual following 10 minutes of questions and comments would be directed at the right hon. Prime Minister, unless of course it was with the unanimous consent of the House. I think it is quite clear that there is not unanimous consent.
Those are the precedents which I think support the proposition that what we have in the argument put forward by the hon. member for Kamloops is an argument which might be better put to a committee studying the rules.

February 20, 1990
Point of Order
While it may have been the intention of the framer of the rule to have it interpreted this way, it certainly has not been so interpreted in accordance with these four authorities. It certainly has not been interpreted that way during this Parliament since the election of 1988. Indeed in my experience the interpretation has been consistent with the authorities I have cited.
It seems to me that what the hon. member for Kamloops is asking the Chair to do is to change the interpretation of Standing Order 84(7) to make it at variance with the interpretation of all the other similarly worded rules in the Standing Orders without going through a change to the rule. I am not sure that such a change would in fact be agreeable to members of this House.
Speaking for the Opposition, I suggest that the consistent practice has been not to permit questions and comments following the unlimited speech times provided for in the rules or after the 40-minute speeches provided for in Standing Order 74 on second reading of a bill.
Given the consistent practice in that regard, I suggest that Your Honour ought to continue to follow that practice for the budget debate that will be starting presumably tomorrow, if not later today, depending upon when you consider it to have begun.
I would ask that Your Honour rule that there are no such question and comment periods following the unlimited times, and that if the hon. member for Kamloops wishes to pursue the matter further he should raise it with the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Members' Business.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to spend a great deal of the time of the House in going through this point of order. I have listened with care to the arguments made by the hon. member for Kamloops and the member from Kingston.
I think most of the precedents, if not all of them, that I would have referred to in my argument have been covered. The precedents are very clear. Certainly the most recent precedents under which we have been
operating for the last five or six years are very clear that there is a pattern in this area. That pattern is that the first two speakers, those who are exempted from the 20-minute rule, are not subject to a question and comment period to follow that speech without the consent of the House.
There are two points that I wish to make in that regard. First, in looking at the Annotated Standing Orders we see that they are a summary of the Standing Orders with some explanatory notes. Those explanatory notes are a collection of experiences and applications of those particular Standing Orders. Reading from page 270 of the Annotated Standing Orders, we see that the last paragraph in the explanatory notes regarding Standing Order 84(7) states in part:
This section also provides for a 10-minute question and comment period, which has been interpreted to mean that no questions may be directed to the members who have been exempted from the 20-minute time limit.
The Annotated Standing Orders, which as I say are a summary not only of precedent but of practice, are very clear that the practices and methods we have used in the House on this question have very much set a pattern which says that there should not be questions after these two major speeches.
The second important point is that on looking through the precedents which have already been described it is very clear that the patterns and the habits which have been emerging are that in cases where this matter has come up there has been a request for unanimous consent.
I would argue that when there is a request for unanimous consent it is because the Standing Orders we are operating under do not provide for that particular action. In other words, we have to go outside those rules in order to accomplish what the particular individual would like to accomplish at that moment. That is why someone has to ask for unanimous consent.
That pattern has emerged so clearly over the years that it once again demonstrates very forcefully that Standing Order 84(7) does make it clear, has been interpreted as such, and has been practised as such that the Prime Minister and the first member speaking on behalf of the Opposition are exempted from the question and comment period.
February 20,1990

As I said, I do not want to go through the precedents. They have been well put forward by the hon. member from Kingston. I do not need to repeat them.
The practice is very clear. Our Annotated Standing Orders are very clear. As a result the practices we have been using for the last five or six years which have demonstrated a very clear pattern are the practices that we need to continue in the future.
I would like to refer to the Lefebvre committee which was the committee that first started this process of having questions and comments. I was a member of that committee in 1983-84 when the practice was first introduced. Very shortly after we found that there was a habit developing in the House of not applying the questions and comments to the speeches made by the Prime Minister or the first speaker for the Opposition.
I mention that because following the Lefebvre committee very closely was the McGrath task force which made major recommendations in terms of changes and reforms to the House. I also served on that committee. As I recall-and I am going from memory and not from a document that proves my case-the McGrath task force did not in any way try to change that practice which was already emerging at that particular point.
I think we have precedent and practice. There have not been any changes recommended by either the McGrath task force or the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Members' Business. It is very clear that we should continue with the practice we now have, that is if someone wishes that to happen they should ask for consent. Then the government, the Opposition or the individual member speaking, at that point has the option of whether or not to accept it. It is not, as I believe is the very clear practice of this House, to allow those questions and comments under the present rules.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there any further reply from the hon. member for Kamloops?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the case has been well put by my hon. colleagues. I ask however, as I pleaded in the latter part of my presentation, that you give some thought to equity, fairness and justice in the House, particularly as reflected in the Mother of Parliament where front-benchers and back-benchers are treated in a similar fashion. There are no privileges extended to
Government Orders
selected members of the House, but those same privileges are extended to all members.


Mr. Speaker:: As I said a few minutes ago, it is a very interesting point the hon. member for Kamloops has raised. I have listened carefully to his comments. I also listened to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the hon. parliamentary secretary.
The argument put forward is such that I think it is appropriate to reserve on it. I shall try to return to the House with some guidance for the House at three o'clock.
I want to thank the hon. member for Kamloops for presenting an argument which was extremely clear and well enunciated. I thank other members for their interventions.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard (Roberval) that Bill C-26, an act to amend the Railway Act (grain and flour subsidies), be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Ms. Clancy (p. 8227).
Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in this debate today on Bill C-26 and to speak to some of the comments that have been made previously. The member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, a member of our caucus, has done an outstanding job on the debate on Bill C-26.
I would like to review some of the arguments that he has presented and talk about the impact that this legislation is to have on Atlantic Canada. It will compound the problems that exist in the fishing industry there, as well as add to all the problems that this government is causing for that region of the country.
Just before getting into my comments I want to survey some of the research I have done on this matter and to refer to some of the reading I have been able to do. I really wish to compliment again the member of our

February 20, 1990
Government Orders
caucus who has really led the fight on this particular legislation.
I would like to take a look at some of the work that has been done in this regard. Madam Speaker, I know that you would be most interested in doing that. In particular I would like to refer to the headlines, which is I guess how Canadians find out about what we are doing in this place. One headline in referring to the National Transportation Agency states "NDP Critic Asks the Agency" to review this matter. He caught them off guard. That is the kind of good work we are doing in this area.
Another headline states "Subsidy Being Cut and Elevator Closing". Here is a good one. Like all members in this House we like to have stories like this one written about us from time to time: "The MP from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre is making waves in New Brunswick".
The reason he is making waves in New Brunswick is that once again this government is bringing in the kind of bottom line mentality legislation that is having an impact on the Atlantic Canadian region, as well as on other areas.
We can put this matter back to back with the debate we had just last night on legislation that is going to help the wealthy. It is interesting as well to see the position that the Liberal Party takes on this matter. As you know, Madam Speaker, it would appear that it has given up on the fight on the GST. Liberal Party members have no position. They are not even sure what that is.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Brian L. Gardiner: It will be interesting to see just what position they take on this particular legislation.
We have them excited again, as we did yesterday. We woke them up. The Liberal Party as we know has been following the practices that the Conservatives are now implementing.
Let us take a look at what Bill C-26 is all about. First, I would like to give a little background. This bill is commonly referred to as the at and east freight assistance program which pays a subsidy to the railways on export grain and flour moving via specified routes through eastern Canadian ports. The rates paid by the
shipper have been frozen since 1960 with respect to export grain and since 1966 with respect to flour.
The notes are very interesting. If members need them after to do some work on this subject I would be pleased to provide them with a copy. Let us look at the history of this legislation, Bill C-26.
When the railways wished to increase their rates in the 1960s, it was then argued-I bet it was even argued by the Conservatives at that time-that increased rates would price Saint John and Halifax out of the market. It was thus felt important to maintain rates at a fixed level so that eastern rates would remain competitive.
The beneficiaries of this particular legislation were Halifax and Saint John. Here are some interesting statistics concerning this matter. Of all grain moved from Saint John, 95 per cent moves under Bill C-26, the at and east program, while 67 per cent of grain moved through Halifax moves through the at and east program as well.
With respect to flour, virtually all flour moved through the two ports moves at the at and east rates. Flour amounts to approximately one-third of all general cargo handled at Halifax and 7 per cent of general cargo at Saint John.
What is the cost? It is a subsidy, and we all know what the Conservatives think about subsidies. They will cut them wherever they are needed and then, as the member from Kootenay West said so clearly last night in the debate on Bill C-52, they will argue: "We have to make things fairer. We have to do away with that evil universality. We must take from those people who do not need it, and let us make sure that the people who are poor and are in need get some kind of assistance".
What do they do? They introduce Bill C-52 which helps the wealthy. Yet, what are they doing in this case? They are cutting a subsidy which costs about $32 million a year as calculated by our researchers who have spent a considerable amount of time looking into this matter. In Bill C-52, the bill we debated last night, what are we giving to the wealthy? Hundreds of millions of dollars.
Let us see who depends on this subsidy for help in this particular market area and in terms of these transportation costs.
February 20, 1990

The Halifax-Darmouth Port Development Commission stated: "The economics of grain traffic at the port in 1988 amounted to $25.9 million in revenues and 263 jobs while flour traffic resulted in $28.4 million in revenues and 220 jobs".
The Saint John Port Corporation states that the movement of bulk grain through its port in 1988 under the program amounted to $8.5 million, along with 90 direct jobs. In addition to the 573 direct jobs lost at these two ports, another 250 indirect jobs may be lost as well.
What will this mean? It will compound the problems that this government is already adding to Atlantic Canada: the fisheries problem, VIA Rail cuts, ACOA's shuffling of money and the shim-sham there.
The loss of the at and east program likely means the closing of the elevator at Halifax and almost certainly the elevator at Saint John meaning further jobs lost. The reason the loss of the program is so devastating to Saint John is that its elevator can only accept grain from railway cars and has no facilities to unload ships. It is going to worsen the situation already existing at Saint John.
If the elevator in Halifax closes, it threatens the future of the Dover Flour Mills. It is the only flour mill in Atlantic Canada. The Conservatives think that nobody knows what Bill C-26 is. They say: "We will sneak that one through". What usually happens is that the people who are directly involved in any of these particular industries or the supporting infrastructure quickly learn just what the impact is of a sneaky bill like this.
It is only through the diligent work of members of this side of the House, especially the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre who has really been leading the fight against this legislation, to stop it that we can bring to the attention of this House all of the problems involving the resulting gains and losses if in fact it gets through this House.
Who are the winners? With the Tories and the Liberals it is always the wealthy, the better off, those corporations that can afford to pay $1.7 million for their leadership campaigns.
The winners in the loss of the at and east are central Canada, primarily Montreal, as well as the ports in Ontario.
Government Orders
There is a question here that was raised in previous meetings I have had. It is: Let us take a real look at the subsidies. We are not suggesting that you shut the St. Lawrence Seaway down. But if they are talking about subsidies, let us see what goes into keeping the Seaway going. It is the same kind of argument that supporters of VIA Rail have made.
The government states: "We are subsidizing it to the hilt. We can't do this. We'll do a lousy job just like the Liberals did and we'll shut it down". Of course, if you take a look at the subsidies to airlines with airports and maintenance at airports, then you have a true picture. That is the same situation that we are going to get with this particular legislation.
This government, and I am also familiar with our provincial government in British Columbia, would be satisfied to shut almost everything down, put an 800 number in and run the country from Ottawa, or in the case of the Social Credit government in British Columbia from Victoria.
That is the kind of bottom line mentality that you end up with with these types of governments. I do not know if they really and truly understand the effects of the legislation that they try to get through this House from time to time. They should spend more time talking to constituents, the people who work in the jobs in the resources and in the industries in this country to get a better understanding of the impact that they are having.
The removal of at and east likely means a loss of elevators at Halifax and Saint John. They are all-season ports in eastern Canada. We know how important that is to our trade in this country. It will have an effect of further crippling the regions of Canada to the benefit of central Canada. We should try to ensure in this House that we spread those benefits a little further. There is not a region that I can think of that is probably in more need of attention now than it has ever been, namely, Atlantic Canada.
It also shows that Canada is really quite spineless in international trade negotiations. While the U.S. is increasing agriculture subsidies in order to comer some traditional Canadian markets, we have moved toward unilateral disarmament by cutting subsidies to the regions that need them the most. Canada has yet again knuckled under to U.S. and European pressure. It is

February 20, 1990
Government Orders
another example of the failure of this government in its trade and economic policies.
As the debate continues on this legislation, my colleague, the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, will bring this issue to Parliament to the attention of all Canadians. He will be working hard, as will all members of this caucus, to ensure that the issues are brought forward, that we do our best to bring some equality to this country and help to those regions that need it. It helps to develop our resources and our industries.
Certainly our caucus will keep up the fight on Bill C-26. We will see whatever the Liberals do on this. We are not sure, given whatever kind of strategy they have right now on the GST and Bill C-52 but we are trying to get a reading of it. I hope they will join with us in fighting this legislation.


Mr. Harvard:: I find the remarks of the hon. member from British Columbia veiy interesting. He seems to be very concerned about what the Liberals might do. The Liberals have been fighting for this country a lot longer than the New Democrats. When it comes to cutting regional programs in Atlantic Canada, central Canada, western Canada you can be sure that the Liberal Party will be there. We do not have to be concerned about the NDP. I can assure the hon. member for British Columbia that he does not have to go through any sleepless nights. The Liberal party will be here standing up for the regions of the country.
Despite the fact that the member has made some irresponsible remarks, particularly with respect to the Official Opposition, I do have a question for him and I hope that he has an answer.
He has been expressing concern about the effects of the at and east subsidy elimination. I would like to know from him-because the NDP is always concerned about workers and jobs-what effect this might have on jobs in Atlantic Canada, in western Canada and in central Canada?


Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, I have enjoyed the debate of the last couple of days because the Liberals to our right are very testy these days. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to some of the questions that they have.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We are 51 in the polls. You are only 21. Who is testy?


Brian L. Gardiner: Well, let me respond in detail. I think that proves my point about who is being testy and who is not.
I enjoy sitting beside the member from Winnipeg from time to time on our flights to the west. He talked about regional programs. Well, let me tell you, Madam Speaker, about one regional program and where the Liberals do or do not stand, depending on the time of day. For example, forestry. In the 1984 election campaign, the Liberals then Leader, the one who just resigned, came to the minister's and my home town in northern British Columbia and said that he was absolutely against a full-fledged department of forestry. Then he tried to make a landing during the last campaign and of course he was fog-bound like the Liberal Party usually is.
If we are going to talk about regional programs, let us talk about something critical. Let us talk about education and post-secondary education. Which government was it that through its six and five program lifted the requirement that spending money on education, post-secondary education and health care had to be spent on that matter in the provinces which received those funds? Ultimately, it is the Liberals who are responsible for letting Socreds pave the Coquihalla Highway with money that should have been spent on education and health care in B.C.
The concerns that we have with Bill C-26 are the obvious loss of jobs that have been outlined by our critic. He has now listed the number of jobs in Atlantic Canada that will be lost. Through a coherent transportation policy adopted by New Democrats, we can ensure that jobs in Atlantic Canada are preserved and that we have a rational shipping policy that equals all of the concerns across the country.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I am provoked by the hon. member's comments to participate in this debate and make a comment to him.
I am delighted to see the New Democratic Party, which has no representation whatsoever in Atlantic Canada, taking this new found interest in the eastern part of our country. I think that it is fair to say that the members in the New Democratic Party represent a western rump. It is a well-known fact that their inability to get seats in Atlantic Canada is reflected in the fact that they now stand here trumpeting day after day their concerns for the problems that are besetting that region of the country, thanks to the hon. members opposite who have botched their attempts to salvage what they can from the
February 20, 1990

financial and economic mess they have created in eastern Canada.
Having said that, I think that what we need to look at is the fact that the voters of Atlantic Canada are extremely astute. If the hon. member would take the time to look at the polls, he would see that the voters there have indicated a preference for the Liberal party. That was reflected in the last campaign and no doubt will be reflected in the next campaign. The Liberal party was paced at 47 percentage points ahead of its nearest rivals, the Conservatives. The New Democratic Party is trying to jump on this Liberal bandwagon. It feels that by opposing these bills to which we have already announced our opposition that it can benefit somehow from the phenomenal rise that the Liberal party is experiencing across Canada.
We in the Liberal party are delighted to have the support of the New Democratic Party in our opposition to government measures. We recognize, as they do, that the voters would not normally bother to elect them if they had a reasonable choice. We know that the hon. member who just spoke, and to whom I address my comments, is elected from the province of British Columbia. He was just citing to us the difficulty the electors of British Columbia have. They elected a Social Credit government. Well, it is the only province in Canada that made such a silly mistake.
We in the Liberal party offer an alternative across the country. The hon. member is an example of the problem that the electors of British Columbia have in saying they always want to jump on the Liberal bandwagon but do not quite manage to do it when it comes to votes. I know that the member would want to invite them to vote Liberal the next time so that they can get in the true opposition spirit to oppose Conservative government policies. He knows that we have opposed those policies. He knows that we are leaders in opposing those policies and Canadians know it too, as reflected in the polls. I invite the member to comment on that.


Brian L. Gardiner: I appreciate the question from my hon. friend on Bill C-26. First, what is it that is an indication and a sign to Canadians in any part of the country that a political party in this House is concerned about a
Government Orders
particular issue? What do we do within our own caucuses? We try to work within our caucus to convince our leader to know and get to understand those issues. Which leader was in Canso just a few days ago expressing the concerns of Atlantic Canadians? Audrey McLaughlin, the Leader of the New Democrats was there recognizing the importance of that issue.
The Liberals do not have a leader. The hon. member is so confident. Those who live by the polls die by the polls. We will see in the next election campaign just where the polls are sitting when Canadians finally see just what the Liberal party's position is on the GST, on Bill C-26, on helping the wealthy with Bill C-52, really what their position is on free trade.
This debate and the news this morning really struck a chord with me. The lead item on the news was how a baffled Liberal MP wandered into a finance committee meeting last night. Where is their participation? If that keeps up, we know where they will be in the polls very shortly.
I cannot sit down without making the comment to friends in my party and members of the public that Atlantic Canada has been kicked around by Liberals and Conservatives year in and year out. People ask me why do they still vote for Liberals and Conservatives. I think a change is in the wind. We are going to see a change. In the next election campaign, the people of Atlantic Canada will know who their friends are. They will know who is fighting the GST, they will know who is fighting the VIA Rail cuts and they will know who is taking a leadership role on Bill C-26, Madam Speaker, and you will see what the results are in the next federal election.


John Harvard: Madam Speaker, after listening to the nonsense from the hon. member from British Columbia the last few minutes, I wish to heaven that the New Democrats would come to realize who the political enemy is in this Chamber and in this country. They are not on this side of the House, they are over there and Canadians well understand that. All you have to do is look at the last poll. The Liberals are over 50 per cent in popular support, and there are the New Democrats down with the Tories at 22 per cent and 21 per cent. Canadian people understand that but certainly the New Democrats do not.

February 20, 1990
Government Orders
It is indeed an honour for me to take part in this debate to address the matter that is before us, Bill C-26. I must admit that I feel some unease, I feel considerable trepidation because what we are dealing with here is Tory legislation. We know what Tory legislation has come to mean. I shudder to think what is going to be coming down the pike this afternoon at approximately 4.30. After five and a half years of Tory mismanagement, I can just imagine what is going to be in the budget document. But we will leave that for another moment.
I will not go into the history of the at and east subsidy at this particular time. Other members have done a very good job of that. The at and east subsidy had the effect of freezing rail shipping rates for grain at and east of Buffalo, New York and to eastern ports at 1960 levels for grain and 1966 levels for flour.
However, I think it is noteworthy to mention something that was said by the hon. Jack Pickersgill in 1966 when this particular legislation was under consideration. The then transport minister stated: "One of the aims of the subsidy was to ensure that we will have rates which will provide some inducement and incentive to shippers to use the facilities of Atlantic ports."
This is significant because it was seen then for what it really was and that is a regional program-and I want to underline that-a regional program. It has served the regions of the country well, not just the Atlantic region, although I would say particularly the Atlantic region, but also parts of Ontario as well as the grain growing areas of western Canada.
Despite the success of the program, despite the fact that regional programs in Atlantic Canada have already been cut 39 per cent in the past five years, despite the fact that Atlantic Canada is going through some veiy, very tough times right now, especially with respect to the fishery, despite the success of the at and east program which has been very important to the agricultural industry of this country, like so many other programs it has to be sacrificed.
Why? Because it does not fit the Tory agenda. It does not fit the Tory right wing economics. It does not fit the Tory market economy. It does not fit the Tory law of the jungle, and it does not fit the Tory withdrawal from almost everything that has made this country great. So
the at and east subsidy has to go because Tory theology says it must go, and so it goes.
It really does not matter what Canadians might say. It certainly does not matter what farmers might say or what port workers, mill workers or elevator workers might say. They really do not count. It only matters what Tory ministers say. The Tory ministers say that the at and east must go. In fact, the Tory ministers do not give a hoot about what is said in this House. The minister who opened second reading debate stated: "The subsidy was terminated on July 15, 1989." That is a direct quote from Hansard. How do you like that? The purpose of this Bill C-26 is to end the subsidy, but the minister says it was terminated last July 15.
Therefore, I ask the question, why are we here today? Why are we wasting our time? The government has already decided the subsidy is already terminated. We have been presented with a fait accompli. That to me is disgusting, for this is the purest form of contempt, contempt for Parliament, contempt for members of this House, contempt for the democratic process, and contempt for the Canadian people. The subsidy was terminated on July 15, 1989. I want to repeat that so that it really sinks in: the subsidy was terminated July 15, 1989.
It takes a particular brand of arrogance to say something like that, to do something like that. But of course we already know that Tory arrogance knows no bounds. There is really nothing new about it.
I want to remind you, Madam Speaker, of something else that this government did back in August, 1989. The Department of Finance placed two full page ads in major newspapers across the country which stated: "On January 1, 1991, Canada's federal sales tax system will change. Please save this notice."
Without a word of formal debate in this House, the government had the arrogance to tell the country that Canada's federal sales tax system will change. "Please save this notice". That, to me, was arrogant. It was in contempt of this House and it drew a rare rebuke from the Speaker of this Parliament.
But this government, it seems, Madam Speaker, never learns anything. This time it tells us that, as far as the at and east subsidy is concerned, the subsidy was terminated July 15, 1989.
February 20,1990

I want to pick up on something else the minister said, referring to the bill. "It will stimulate creativity and innovation. It will allow the industry to take advantage of unanticipated sales opportunities, no longer constraining potential cost savings".
I would like the minister to tell that to the 1,200 workers who hold jobs connected with this legislation. Tell that to the 320 transport workers and the 295 who hold milling jobs in western Canada, the 75 who hold jobs in Georgian Bay ports, the 85 who hold jobs in Halifax and Saint John, and the 402 who hold jobs in central Canada. Maybe the minister would like to tell her story face to face to these workers. I am quite sure that she would get an earful.
Why should we believe anything that this government tells us, for nothing ever works. Nothing it promises comes true. Remember all the big talk when it came to power nearly five and a half years ago. It was going to clean up the economy, and of course it promised not to touch any social programs. But here it is 1990, and the country, particularly its economy, is in a mess. Inflation is on the rise, unemployment is on the rise, interest rates are shooting through the roof. Never before have we seen such a spread in interest rates between Canada and the United States. The debt has doubled in five and one-half years. Our trade surplus is the worst in 10 years, and we are taxed, taxed and taxed. Come 1991, if the Tories get their way, we are going to get hammered again with the so-called goods and services tax.
The Tories have hacked VIA Rail. They have privatized unemployment insurance, and they have ended universality through that iniquitous thing called the clawback.
The government says it will save $40 million or $60 million by killing the at and east subsidy. I submit that this cannot be seen in isolation. I must remind members of other cuts in last spring's budget. I know it is painful for the Tories to hear, but I think it bears reminding. Two hundred million was cut out of crop insurance, $48 million cut out of rail line rehabilitation, $54 million cut out of advance payments for grain, $15 million cut out of the Farm Credit Corporation, $12 million cut out of the Canadian Dairy Commission. Cut, cut, cut and cut some more; $399 million in all in farm support programs gone. Just like smoke in the wind. It could not come at a worst time.
Government Orders
Farm income is expected to drop 39 per cent across the country this year. That old saw about Tory times are tough times comes particularly true in the year 1990. It seems that the Tories are bound and determined to keep on hacking, slashing and cutting, even if it does not make any sense.
Look, if you will, at their priorities. They want to kill at and east and save a few million dollars, after raising the alcohol and tobacco taxes $475 million in the last budget. In the meantime, they will not go after over 100,000 corporations which do not pay income tax at all, corporations which earned in total $25 billion. One really wonders where their priorities are.
However, the Tories will ride herd on farmers, port and mill workers. Under the at and east rates, the Atlantic region has proven to be a good market for western producers. Look at the figures. Last winter, the Canadian Wheat Board moved more than 175,000 tonnes of grain to ports in Halifax and Saint John, but it is more like 400,000 tonnes a year.
With the at and east subsidy gone, Atlantic Canada will have to look elsewhere for its purchases. It does not have a choice, for what we are talking about here is a matter of survival. Producers in Atlantic Canada cannot supply their own market. They account for only 20 per cent of Nova Scotia's requirements, 35 per cent to 40 per cent of New Brunswick's, and I believe it is about 80 per cent for Prince Edward Island.
The withdrawal of the at and east subsidy will place an enormous burden on livestock and poultry producers in Atlantic Canada and, of course, it will rob western farmers of one of their traditional markets.
Atlantic Canada cannot be expected to take this lying down. They are tough people there and they are not going to take it lying down.
Consider, if you will, what the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission is proposing. It has come up with three possible options to offset the effects of the loss of the at and east subsidy.
First, importing barley, wheat and oats from France and other European countries. These countries would be able to supply the east coast at cheaper prices than those from domestic sources. That is certainly not good news for western Canada. The second option proposed by the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission is asking the federal government to drop its countervail on American corn. The third option is the use of unit trains to

February 20, 1990
Government Orders
move grain directly from the prairies to the ports of Elalifax and Saint John.
In the perspective of the Atlantic provinces, I am sure those proposals make a lot of sense, but from a federal perspective they show just how foolish the federal government is in cancelling the at and east subsidy. Why would anyone want to drive Atlantic Canada to the European markets to buy supplies when those supplies are already available right here in Canada and that has been going on for years and years? Why would anyone, through government policy, want U.S. corn to be bought which would only place farmers at a disadvantage in this country? There is something terribly wrong with this. It makes one wonder whether the government has gone completely mad. It is as if the government has taken a huge knife and cut the country in half. It is as if it wants to break the bonds that tie our regions together and drive them into the arms of our competitors.
There is nothing in Bill C-26 for national unity. There is nothing for Halifax, nothing for Saint John, nothing for any part of Atlantic Canada. There is certainly nothing for anyone except ideologically driven Tory ministers who are hell-bent on wrecking venerable Canadian institutions and venerable Canadian programs, programs which over time have proven their worth and value, but they have to go. That is what Tory ideology says and that is what Tory theology says.
Let me point out that these cutbacks, and this one in particular, are coming at time which could not be worse. It is a time when the Americans, our competitors, our adversaries in the marketplace, are putting in place a $900 million export subsidy program. That will not help us. That will help American farmers. Can you imagine how absurd the situation is. We are going absolutely in the wrong direction and farmers are left completely vulnerable because of government policy.
When you think about it, it all fits a pattern. The Americans raid our traditional grain markets and make it more difficult for our pork and beef producers to gain access to the U.S. market. On the other hand, the Americans are demanding that they flog their ice cream and yogurt in our markets.
What does our government do to counteract this? It cuts farm support programs by $399 million in the budget of last spring. It takes oats away from the Canadian Wheat Board. It has threatened the supply-management system in the country and those of us who are most pessimistic, particularly if this Tory reign goes on much longer, believe there will not be a supply-management system left in this country.
Is it any wonder that we are deathly afraid of what might happen in the subsidy negotiations in the next few years? Will there be anything left? Can you imagine a worse fate than leaving subsidy negotiations in the hands of the people over there? Their idea of negotiation is to give things away. If an agreement is consummated that way, then it is a success. That is not success, unless success is measured in destroying programs and destroying institutions.
The Tory approach to tackling problems raises fundamental questions. What will they do when they finish selling off the family silverware? By that I mean, what will they do after removing the underpinnings of the farm community? What will they do after they finish privatizing unemployment insurance, decimating VIA Rail, closing rural post offices and ending universality? What will they do after their wrecking job?
When they discover after this decimation that there are still problems of disparity, of poverty, of inflation, and still problems of unemployment, what will they do then? What will the Tories do when they have given away the store completely?
Madam Speaker, there was a report in one of the weekend papers that in the coming budget-which will be delivered in this House in approximately four hours- the Minister of Finance would announce a sell-off of about $1 billion in federal properties.
I do not know if that is going to happen. If the government were to do that, it would suggest to me that Tory economic policy is just one step away from rigor mortis. We know that when the fellow begins to sell off properties, everything in the house and in the garage, and sell off all the tools, you know he is just one step away from bankruptcy. That is the status of Tory economic policy right now. After five and a half years of Tory rule, there is total and complete economic mismanagement.
February 20, 1990

I hope that the government of the day will rethink this position, particularly with respect to the at and east subsidy, go back to square one and consult Canadians, because they have some good ideas. We do not have to go through with this. I hope the government will consider some amendments when this bill reaches committee.


Mr. Laporte:: Madam Speaker, I appreciated the hon. member's speech. In fact, it sounded like it was written by a social democrat.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Samson:: That's the way they are. They campaign like New Democrats and govern like Tories.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a comment and then ask the hon. member a question.
I appreciate his quote from Minister Pickersgill, who pointed out that contrary to the government's statement that this bill was originally put in place not so much to help Halifax and Saint John compete with American ports, but to aid those ports in competing with the St. Lawrence ports. That was the original purpose of this bill.
Early this morning the transport committee, of which I am a member, met with members from the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission. The government has ignored this bill for some eight months. This is only the second day of debate on it. I find it quite insulting that it would bring it up on the very day when the transport committee is meeting with people from the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission. We had to cut our meeting short in order to come to the House to debate this bill. It is just another example of how this government really does not give a damn about the maritimes or the at and east bill.
Some excellent presentations were made to the committee today. One of the presentations was by Dover Flour Mills, who are very concerned about this bill. John Doering pointed out on behalf of Dover Flour Mills and the milling industry that their concern with respect to this bill is not about competing with the Americans, it is competing with the St. Lawrence ports. Their problem in dealing with the the Americans is the enhancement program to which the Americans are contributing this
Government Orders
$900 million. In light of that, I would like to quote from Mr. Doering's brief.
He does not even call it the free trade agreement, because they know there is nothing free in that agreement. He states:
In light of the Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement we have agreed to move away from subsidies, but the U.S. agricultural sector which includes agri-business, will continue to be subsidized and benefit from a continuation of the Export Enhancement Policy which, more than anything else, has been and will continue to be the instrument of the destruction of the Canadian milling industry. That policy allows mills in the U.S. to run at full capacity while we languish at two-thirds capacity. Investment in production efficiencies or upgrading is unlikely to be considered attractive in the Canadian milling industry and, in this weakened state, we are asked to move aggressively toward competing for business in the U.S. against a very strong U.S. milling sector, who already have much lower wheat costs.
Added to this, the U.S. mills have a transportation advantage as U.S. railways have a less restrictive tax regime and lower operating costs for fuel taxes.
That is an example of how the free trade agreement affects the maritimes. During the campaign and again in his speech, the hon. member has made some very interesting comments and has been very vocal against the free trade agreement. There is some concern with the Liberal leadership these days because of rumours that not everybody is opposed to the free trade agreement.
I would like the member to reconfirm that he, in fact, is opposed, if not to free trade itself, certainly to the free trade agreement, and that he will oppose this bill and any measures that are going to limit real free trade in this country.


John Harvard: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. I can say to him and to this House, unequivocally and categorically, that I was against the free trade agreement in the election campaign and I remain against the free trade agreement.
Our former leader, the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, has said several times that when it comes to the free trade agreement he is on the right side of history. After only a year of that agreement in place, I believe he has already been vindicated. As time goes on, there will be more and more evidence that the free trade agreement is going to harm this country irreparably.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre asked whether I was against the bill and if I would continue to be against the bill. The answer is yes.

February 20, 1990
Government Orders
I want to point out something that I did not mention in my speech a few minutes ago. It has to do with proposals put forward by the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission.
The commission has put forward a number of proposals. I will not go through them at this time, but it has been estimated that in totality the proposals put forward by the commission would have resulted in savings to the federal government of about $22 million in transportation subsidies each year, which by the way represents about half the cost of the at and east subsidy. One would think that the federal government, given its bent and penchant for savings and so on, would favour such a proposal.
The wringer here is that the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Committee has never received a formal reply to its proposals. Never. It makes one wonder. It seems that this government is more interested in just hacking and slashing as opposed to listening and responding to responsible proposals like, for example, those from the APTC.


Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for Winnipeg St. James (Mr. Harvard), who earlier referred to our government's poor management-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He is right!


Guy St-Julien: I have to tell Canadians that we received this legacy from the previous Liberal government.
I would like to ask him the following question: Further to the Scientific Research Tax Credits Program which was-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Guy St-Julien: -introduced by former Minister Marc Lalonde-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Change your question, you asked that yesterday!


Guy St-Julien: I would like to ask him the following question: The program is yesterday's news, but I want an answer today-


An hon. member:: He didn't get the right answer to his questions!


Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask him the following question: This program was supposed to cost 200 million dollars but ended up costing 3.5 billion. Furthermore, it ended up being-


Mr. Duhamel:: The Conservatives took advantage of the program-


Guy St-Julien: -1.9 billion in the red, because of funds that completely disappeared, both in Canada and outside the country.
Is the hon. member aware of this fact, Madam Speaker, and if so, is he prepared to table a motion in the House to ask for a royal inquiry on the program introduced by the Liberals which ended up with a 1.9 billion loss? We could have built 50 hospitals in this country for that amount.
Is the hon. member prepared to table in the House a motion requesting a royal inquiry on Marc Lalonde's program, Canada's theft of the century?


John Harvard: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question.
Show me a government that never made a mistake and I will show you a government that has never done anything. The fact of the matter is-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


John Harvard: Do the Tories want the answer or not?
The fact of the matter is that yes, previous Liberal administrations tried things and they did not always work out to the best. Anybody who is honest will admit to it.
I will tell you one thing, Madam Speaker. Liberal governments never went out and deliberately destroyed a program. Liberal governments never went out and deliberately destroyed institutions, and that is exactly what this government has done for five and a half years.
If the government wants to hear the litany of programs and institutions that it has destroyed, I would have to be here all day. I just remind those members that they have decimated VIA Rail. They have gone after social programs despite the Prime Minister's solemn promise during the election campaign of 1984 that he would not touch social programs. He was not going to touch social programs. Was he in office two months or three months
February 20, 1990

before he tried to get his hands on old age pensions? Canadians slapped his wrists, and he stood back.
When the Tories were re-elected in 1988 they could not wait and brought in the clawback which ends universality, which will cut back and shrink old age pensions and family allowances.
I just want to remind the hon. member that yes, every government makes a mistake but the Liberal government never went out and deliberately destroyed programs and institutions that served this country well.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate. The hon. member for Egmont.


Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-26, a bill which amends the Railway Act by eliminating the at and east grain and flour subsidy programs. The intention to eliminate this program was indicated in the budget of April 27, 1989. The program was scheduled to end July 15, 1989.
I find it somewhat ironic that it is now February 20, and we are in debate on second reading of a bill which in reality has become law already. Second reading has not been completed. There has been no committee study. There has been no third reading. There has been no Senate approval. There has been no royal assent. Yet, Madam, Speaker, the program has been eliminated, retroactive to July 16, 1989.
Unless I misunderstand the process, this current exercise is a charade. Parliament has been subverted by this government once again. However, since the question of privilege raised by my colleague in the NDP, the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, is not yet ruled upon, I want to take this opportunity to add my comments to those of my colleagues who oppose this bill.
Since the budget of April 27 last, this government has launched an insidious attack on Atlantic Canada. Whatever the motivation or rationale, be it the infamous level playing field, or the free trade agreement, or some other matter, there has been a steady stream of measures which has laid waste the Atlantic Bregion of our country.
The litany includes the closure or reduction of six military bases. This has affected almost half the bases in the entire country. The worst incident, of course, is the closure of Summerside which killed 1,300 direct jobs,
Government Orders
1,300 indirect jobs, and is affecting one-third of the economic activity of the entire region of the province of P.E.I.
There are the changes to the unemployment insurance system. The increased number of weeks required to qualify will force many people on to the welfare rolls and the burden on the provinces will be increased.
The decision by the federal government to opt out of UI funding also raises a question of what will happen to the fund if a recession should occur and there is a need to increase available moneys as there was in the early 1980s. At that time the federal government kicked in the required money. What is the answer to this problem if it occurs in the 1990s, which is very likely to happen?
In addition, the unemployment benefits for self-employed fishermen are not protected by the UIC act changes. The government has the power to alter the benefit package or even eliminate the whole fishermen's program without consulting Parliament. The fishermen of Atlantic Canada, particularly those of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, must find the situation very disconcerting.
Our fishery is in a state of crisis. When this major industry suffers it impacts seriously on the economy of the entire Atlantic region, but for towns like Canso, Nova Scotia, it is catastrophic.
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague from Cape Breton-Highlands-Canso for the excellent work he has been doing with the people in Canso and with the organization of the tremendous demonstration of Saturday past. The Friends of CFB Summerside were proud and happy to be able to participate and contribute to that success. I also offer him a word of encouragement from the people of Egmont and Summerside. If our experience can be of any assistance, we offer it to him with our full support.
Our railway services have also been abandoned. Prince Edward Island and some areas of the mainland have suffered a total loss of rail service, both passenger and freight. Rail service in other regions has been drastically reduced. This will have a crippling effect on our transportation system and will make it increasingly difficult to attract industries to Atlantic Canada.

February 20, 1990
Government Orders
To these and other problems in Atlantic Canada, this government has added the cancellation of the at and east grain and flour subsidy programs. This program, which has been in effect since the 1960s, was basically instituted to encourage exporters of grain and flour to use eastern Canadian ports. Grain shipped by rail from ports on Georgian Bay, Lake Huron, Lake Ontario and the upper St. Lawrence, as far as Prescott, to any port on the St. Lawrence from Montreal eastward, or to Saint John or Halifax is charged 1960 rates.
Flour shipped through the same ports from any port east of Thunder Bay is charged 1966 rates. The railways are reimbursed by the government for the difference between these rates and the actual present day cost of shipping the grain and flour.
The government estimates that by simply scrapping the at and east subsidy program it will save $40 million. I contend that this is a false sense of economy. Instead of being a legitimate deficit reduction measure, it is an effort to further placate the Americans by eliminating a program which for 25 years has contributed to the reduction of regional disparity in Canada. The fact that grain elevators in Saint John and Halifax and a flour mill in Halifax have flourished the past 20 plus years is due largely to the existence of the at and east program.
A 1984 Canadian Transport Commission report concluded that Canadian flour exports will be practically non-existent without this subsidy. This, of course, begs the question: what will the fate of our flour export industry be? What will be the fate of Dover flour mills in Halifax? What will be the fate of the mill workers whose jobs will disappear?
While I speak as a member for Atlantic Canada I want to point out that the at and east grain and flour subsidy contributes much more to the Canadian economy than simply jobs in the Atlantic area. Initially the program applied only to grain from western Canada. However, since the mid-1970s, Ontario export grain also qualified as long as it was received by water from Georgian Bay ports.
What has evolved is an integrated system of transportation and storage facilities as well as an efficient and orderly marketing process. The Canadian and Ontario Wheat Boards have worked together to provide both of these. Now the government has thrown out an efficient, functional operation. No thought has been given to the
problems this would cause. No thought has been given to replacements or alternatives. This method of operation is consistent with other government activities.
I can give two examples. When military bases were closed, the government admitted no studies had been done to determine the social and economic impact of the closures. No studies were done to determine whether the decisions were militarily sound.
When the government passed its Advance Payments for Crops bill, which was supposed to do great things for Canadian farmers, it proved so unattractive in Prince Edward Island that the government could not find an agency willing to administer the program for the potato growers. By early January only two Canadian farmers had shown even a passing interest in the program.
We are well aware that the St. Lawrence Seaway does not operate year round. Consequently storage facilities are a problem. At present there is insufficient farm storage capacity. Country elevator storage is short term only. Lakeside elevator storage is short term. Since wheat harvest is completed in about four weeks, the first half of the crop must move to make room for the second half. Where will it go? Where will the second half of the crop be stored? Loss of the at and east subsidy will mean that storage at Georgian Bay terminals for future export will not be viable. Closure of the elevators at Port McNicoll and Georgian Bay have already been announced.
Saint John and Halifax are the only two ports in eastern Canada that can operate 12 months of the year. At present, at and east grain movements account for about 70 per cent of the grain exports from Halifax and almost all the grain and wheat exports from Saint John. Cancellation of the subsidy will kill this export trade as well as the 250 accompanying jobs.
The Canadian Transport Commission has stated that in the period of 1971-1981 the railway grossed an average of $33.5 million per year and maintained an average of 263 jobs. Cancellation will reduce revenues accordingly and cost the country at least 263 jobs. During the same period Georgian Bay ports earned average revenues of $1.4 million and provided an average of 75 jobs. As well, these will be lost. It is obvious at this point that termination of the at and east program will also cost millions of dollars because of loss of jobs and spin-off benefits. Without adequate storage facilities the producer must sell all his grain at harvest time. This kills the
February 20, 1990

concept of orderly marketing, lowers the return to the grower and diminishes farm profit margins.
I want to re-emphasize the detrimental effect this program will have on Atlantic agriculture. Feed costs are already considerably higher than those in central Canada. Any further increase will seriously jeopardize the viability of the livestock and poultry industries. My home province of Prince Edward Island grows 80 per cent of its feed grain requirements because it is part of the normal rotation of potatoes, grain and hay. New Brunswick, on the other hand, produces only 35 per cent to 40 per cent of its grain needs; Nova Scotia a mere 20 per cent.
We have a great need for reasonably priced Ontario or western grain to meet our requirements. At present we are legally obliged to buy our grain in Canada from Ontario or the west. Does the loss of the at and east subsidy foretell the end of freight rate assistance? Will we then have to buy our grain from other countries because it is cheaper? And will we be allowed to do so?
No one has claimed the at and east program to be perfect. Five years ago the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission proposed modifications. They did not even receive the courtesy of a reply.
I believe the whole problem of at and east comes back to the question of subsidy. What is a subsidy? Does subsidy mean one thing in Canada and something else in the United States?
Madam Speaker, the answer is obviously yes because the word subsidy is not in the American vocabulary, except when they are talking about Canada and when they are talking about the European Common Market. When are we going to know exactly what subsidy means as it applies to the free trade agreement? Does the so-called level playing field mean something different in Canada than it does in the U.S.? Obviously it does.
Our Minister of Agriculture went on record earlier this month saying that Canada does not like the U.S. decision to step up export enhancement subsidies aimed at getting American products into the European market. He also said, "We had hoped that the U.S. would not have had to employ the export enhancement program
Government Orders
and that we could have scaled down the level of warring. But with the latest U.S. budget calling for an increase in the level of export enhancement, we know that this is a signal that the war might intensify." The minister is finally catching on.
In the same speech the minister expressed concern about the problems encountered with export of Canadian beef to the U.S. He also expressed concern about the difficulty of getting reliable information on the level of U.S. agricultural subsidies and indicated that the government has hired a consulting firm to do research in this area. This is something he should have done in 1986-87. Now that the free trade agreement is signed we are now trying to find out what level of subsidies the Americans are giving to their farmers.
On behalf of the grain growers, the beef producers, the hog growers, the dairy industry, the potato industry, the egg and poultry industry, in fact the entire agricultural sector, I encourage the Minister of Agriculture and this government to act in a most expeditious manner and resolve this question of subsidy before more farmers fall victim and rural Canada suffers further devastation of its population.
Cancellation of the at and east subsidy is one more blow to Atlantic Canada. It is the parting shot of the old 1989 budget. I sincerely hope that this evening's budget will be one which will be more beneficial to all of us in the east who have been so brutalized during the past year.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair would like to suggest to the House that we call it one o'clock and when the House resumes after Question Period we could proceed to the period of questions or comments after the hon. member for Egmont's speech. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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

February 20, 1990


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarrry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the town council of Hawkesbury, the largest town in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, voted unanimously to declared the town officially bilingual. The council also passed a resolution supporting Canada's linguistic duality.
On behalf of all my colleagues here in the House of Commons, I wish to congratulate Mayor Yves Drouin and the Hawkesbury council for their wisdom, their civility, and the respect they have shown their fellow citizens.
A so-called language crisis is now rampant in Canada, mainly owing to the intolerance and bigotry of a small group of people. Honourable men and women every where have a duty to speak out and ensure that the rights of each and everyone of us are respected. I hope that the action taken by the town of Hawkesbury, and last night by the towns of Trenton and Belleville, will be an example to other Ontario municipalities.


ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL BOARD
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, the Atomic Energy Control Board is imposing new cost recovery licence fees on both high schools and universities for the use of radioisotopes in research and teaching.
Dr. A. H. Warner, Chairman of the Radiation Safety Committee at the University of Windsor, writes that the new fees amount to nearly one and one-half times the cost of all radioisotopes used there. One two and one-half hour engineering laboratory exercise will now cost $2,000. Since university operational budgets and most research grants cannot sustain such cost increases,
the use of radioisotopes will have to be curtailed or eliminated. Both research and teaching will suffer.
Herman Bruckman of Sandwich Secondary School, also in Windsor, has written to the AECB for advice on disposing of his very modest holdings of three microcurie standard radiation sources because his teaching budget cannot sustain the $625 cost for a class demonstration of radioactivity.
Thus does this government contribute to the enhancement of research and science teaching in a country so desperately in need of both.


ROMANIA
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, the world is slowly coming to understand the tragedy of the Romanian people enslaved under the Ceausescu regime. The legacy of the tyranny remains today in a broken economy which spawns hunger and disease.
This is most painfully evident in the orphaned Romanian children. Thousands of children are facing malnutrition and disease. The St. George Romanian Orthodox Church in the Romanian community of Regina, with the help of the government of Saskatchewan, has sent a fact-finding mission to see what can be done to help these children.
I would like to call upon all members of the House and the people of Canada to open their hearts to the children of Romania and do whatever they can to help. I would also call upon the government to see if there is a way to utilize military transport to move the much needed supplies of clothing and medicine to Romania.


KINSMEN CLUBS
Mr. Brian O'Kurley (Elk Island):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the seventieth anniversary of Kinsmen in Canada. National Kinsmen President, Brian Thompson, who lives in the riding of Elk Island, leads an organization that was founded by Harold A. Rogers on February 20, 1920.
For 70 years Kinsmen have been serving our community's greatest need through commitment to Canada's war effort in wartime and in times of peace through funding
February 20, 1990

for recreational facilities, medical facilities, emergency equipment and by support for cystic fibrosis research.
With the combined Kinsmen-Kinette membership of 17,000 in almost 1,000 clubs, the association of Kin last year raised $23 million in cash for community service. As well, during its 25 year partnership in the fight against cystic fibrosis, Kinsmen have raised over $15 million for CF research. The recent discovery of the CF gene was made possible by assistance from the family of Kin.
As a former Kinsmen Club president, it is a privilege to pay tribute to 70 years of Kinsmenship in Canada and I offer my sincere best wishes for a Kin future filled with success.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, cooperative housing programs help those Canadians who are in greatest housing need; the disadvantaged, the handicapped, seniors, and low and middle income Canadians squeezed by the housing crisis.
Federal co-operative housing programs have been cut again and again by this government. In last April's budget federal funding for co-operatives was cut by 25 per cent.
The Conservative government has broken its promise to put 5,000 new co-operative housing units onstream each year. In 1989, only 1,700 units were produced. There are huge waiting lists in every province for co-operative housing. Canada Mortgage and Housing is presently undertaking an extensive review of the federal co-operative housing program.
The minister of housing should wait on CMHC's review before cutting any more money from this program. There must be no cuts to co-operative housing in the upcoming budget. Canadians have been waiting too long for a coherent, long term solution to Canada's housing crisis. Co-operative housing meets the very real needs of Canadians waiting for shelter.


THE ECONOMY
Cyril (Cid) Samson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday representatives of the Canso council were
quoted in newspapers as saying that their town and other towns should fight together for their survival.
Today, the finance minister is preparing a speech that will probably cause more consternation in small towns. Taxes will probably go up. The GST is coming down to the line despite massive protests and the price of a lot of goods will probably go up also. We have been warned that this budget will be tough.
Single industry towns all over Canada and small communities like Summerside in Prince Edward Island face a scary future. In Kimberley, B.C., 800 miners have been told they will be out of a job. In Virginiatown, a small northern Ontario community, more than 300 workers lost their jobs without notice when the town's only industry declared bankruptcy. Now, the only remaining bank in that community wants to close. Sometime in the first half of next year, 1,600 employees at Rio Algom Limited are to lose their jobs as two mines will close.
This government does not have a national vision. It is time it wakes up and listen to the people of the small towns across Canada. Perhaps it is time for the finance minister to put on his running shoes and jog across the real Canada. He has been clearly staying put in Ottawa too long and lacks a clear vision of what this country really needs.


FORESTRY INDUSTRIES
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, the forestry industry is a major resource in the Abitibi area, and I am very pleased with the announcement by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion regarding the new program for the forestry sector.
The program, which is funded through the ISTC's sectoral budget, will provide Canadian forestry industries with more than $30 million, of which $18 million, spread over three years, will go to the research, development and innovation component, while the remaining 12.2 million will go to market development and diversification.
Mr. Speaker, our thanks go to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology and to the Minister of State (Forestry), who have shown they understand the needs of our forestry industry. This initiative will help our forestry

February 20,1990
sector strengthen its competitive position on the international market.


An hon. member:: Hear, hear!


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche -Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, at a time when language relations in this country are strained considerably, intolerant Canadians can certainly take a lesson from students in my riding.
On last Friday, February 16, I had the opportunity of speaking before students at the Dalhousie Regional High School. Fifty-one of those students signed and presented me with a letter which reads as follows:
We the Grade 8 social studies classes at D.R.H.S. support bilingualism in Canada and we are proud to be Canadians.
Northern New Brunswick is truly a bilingual area and we would like to say that bilingualism works here.

These students gave me a similar letter, to be brought to the attention of the Prime Minister. These young people have demonstrated their courage, tolerance and good will. We cannot say as much for all Canadians.
Our government leaders ought to show their support for bilingualism in order to stop linguistic intolerance and ensure that both official languages continue to be part of a heritage that makes Canada unique.


VIA RAIL
Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, discontinuing the service of The Canadian on January 15 has had a disturbing effect on the tourist industry in Alberta, especially in Banff National Park.
VIA has received many proposals for the privatization of a system to supply rail services between Calgary and Vancouver with a possible decision being arrived at around the end of March. Tourism is our third largest industry in Alberta and an emphasis must be placed on
the transportation system needed to encourage this industry. The Rocky Mountaineer which now operates one round trip per week from late May to early October does not provide the service which is required to enhance the tourist industry.
When VIA is making a final decision on the privatization of this line it must emphasize affordability and sustainability but, above all, it must ensure to the travelling public the same level and reliability of service that rail passengers have experienced in the past.


VICTIMS OF THALIDOMIDE
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I call on the Minister of Health and Welfare to reconsider his decision of last February 13 and upgrade the compensation package of $7.5 million to Canadian thalidomide victims.
While it was encouraging to see the government finally acknowledge some responsibility with this package, the minister fell far short of the recommendations proposed by the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada. The $7.5 million is an unrealistically small amount to be distributed equally among the roughly 100 victims whose degree of illness and disability varies greatly.
Rosaria Molisse, one of my constituents, for example, requires 24 hour attendant care as a result of her multiple developmental and physical disabilities. Her share of the package, even if invested wisely and administered properly, will only net her some $600 a month in the current money market. This comes nowhere near what will be required to meet the costs of accommodation, living requirements, assistive devices and appropriate qualified help to permit an integrated lifestyle.
Her parents are near retirement and on the brink of physical and economic exhaustion. The Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada has proposed a package that would meet the needs of Rosaria and others like her. I urge the minister to do the right thing and to upgrade the amount and the method of distribution of the compensation package.
February 20, 1990


CANADA POST
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, last week Canada Post officials met with the residents of Westfield and Fundy Royal to announce changes to their postal service. The meeting was well attended by the residents of the community and they clearly expressed their extreme and deep concern about the continuing closures of post offices in rural communities across the country.
On behalf of my constituents, I will be forwarding to the minister responsible for Canada Post and the Prime Minister petitions containing the names of over 800 persons who are opposed to this closure. I trust their views will be given the utmost consideration.


BROADCASTING
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, in 1988 as part of the broadcasting policy the government funded satellite transponders which improved the distribution of native broadcasting in the north and other parts of Canada. We have invested in a technical capacity to broadcast.
In today's budget we are faced with cut-backs in native broadcasting. Two programs are affected: First, the native communications program, which has to do with newspapers and some Trail radio and, second, the northern native broadcasting access program, which is TV and radio. These programs funded by the Secretary of State have been critical to the development of native media which can reflect native values, reinforce a positive native identity and, in particular, protect and enhance native languages.
During the UN decade of literacy, illiteracy among aboriginal people runs at an incredibly high rate. Native media are trying to do something about that. We are speaking about 11 aboriginal newspapers reaching one in four native households and 5,300 hours of radio and 750 hours of television programming and it is going to be cut back.
We in the NDP feel native people need the ability to broadcast in their own language. Here is another cut in the very fabric of Canada. There is more to Canada than the business agenda. These cuts are going to affect the
native people and once again we are losing the glue that holds this country together.


VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS
Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Mr. Speaker, on this important budget day, I wish to pay tribute to all of the voluntary private sector organizations that contribute so significantly to the national debates about public economic affairs in Canada.
As we all know, the practice of democracy cannot and should not be confined to government in isolation from the real world. The process of consultation is especially important in terms of the financial integrity of our country.
In particular, at the considered risk of omitting others, I would like to single out those hundreds of economic groups to be found in virtually every Canadian municipality generally identified as chambers of commerce or boards of trade. They constitute an inherent and important component in the structure of our society, providing a format for public expression and debate which is ordinarily as objective and constructive as any to be found.
It is in that context that the Fredericton-Oromocto Chambers of Commerce have joined forces to sponsor a public information meeting tomorrow about the 1990 budget at which I shall be a participant.
This event, which I feel sure is being paralleled in many other Canadian communities, is but one demonstration of the continuing role of these organizations in providing relevant and timely public service in vital national issues.


FUR INDUSTRY
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, representatives of the Canadian fur industry have repeatedly drawn the attention of the government to problems they are currently facing.
I congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs for last week bringing in clothing with fur on it for our foreign visitors. It is more of that action that we need from the government.

February 20, 1990
Oral Questions
However, since 1987, when mink prices reached an all-time high, the industry has been undermined by the actions of both the anti-fur lobby and especially the expansion in the Scandinavian countries. The result is an over-supply of pelts that has pushed the mink industry to the brink of complete collapse.
This is a solid industry. It possesses top quality pelts and a well trained labour force of farmers. It has been profitable and, with government attention, it will remain so. In order to ensure the Canadian mink farmers can survive this rough period, I call on the Minister of Agriculture to support the industry's request that mink be immediately added to the list of eligible commodities under the Agricultural Stabilization Act.
Time is growing short for these farmers. Many of them exist in Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia and they have had a very difficult year. I ask the Minister of Agriculture to take it under consideration.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Beausejour):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
It is now more than a year that the government has known about the fishery crisis in Atlantic Canada. Since then, the government has been promising action, but these promises have turned out empty. The promised $1 billion response program has melted to $130 million.
The long term response and new programs have disappeared and have been replaced by existing programs. Most Canadians agree that where the government has rightfully offered aid to the western farmers, Atlantic Canadians have been left on their own to deal with that crisis.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister take the opportunity to announce immediately what aid he intends to give in order that Atlantic Canadians will feel that they have been treated fairly and that they will be able to face their future with dignity and not despair?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member acknowledged
in his question, there has already been the announcement of $130 million assistance to some of the people affected by the obvious crisis in the Atlantic fishery.
We are looking at other programs that might be made available to help people who are affected by this crisis. As part of a program by the Government of Canada, and we very much hope in concert with the provinces of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia and we certainly expect in concert with the fishing industry, we hope to try to establish the long term viability of the Canadian fishing industry on the Atlantic coast, having regard to the fact that there has been inadequate planning in the past. There have been decisions taken in part by provincial governments that in hindsight were not intelligent decisions. We have had a very serious problem arise with respect to the northern cod stock. The hon. member will know that Dr. Harris, who was asked to look into the question of scientific assessments, has made his report available to my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who is looking at that report now.
On the basis of that evidence and other, we will be announcing further programs in keeping with the commitment to treat the crisis in the Atlantic fishing industry with the same priority that we have treated the crisis in agriculture in other parts of the country.


Mr. Simmons:: Explain that to the Prime Minister.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also to the Deputy Prime Minister. All we hear are words, words that mean nothing at all. Up to now all the government has offered to Atlantic Canadians affected by the crisis is a recipe of rehashed programs with no new funding. The existing programs were in place to deal with a normally bad situation. They were not made to deal with a crisis situation like the one we have now. Furthermore, these existing programs, as the minister knows, have been reprofiled, reduced and extended over a longer period of time. They did not and do not meet the needs.
How can the minister and the government justify abandoning Atlantic Canada, or is this lack of action consequent with the Prime Minister's words that there is no crisis in Atlantic Canada?
February 20, 1990


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made it very clear that the government by its actions believes there is a serious crisis in the Atlantic fishery. We are dealing with that problem.
The member makes the distinction between old money and new money. That might make sense to him but it does not make much sense to the people in Atlantic Canada who were the beneficiaries of the expenditure of some $130 million by this government in response to some of the problems that are part of the Atlantic provinces' fishing crisis.
With respect to Atlantic Canada generally, he need not take my word for the track record of this government on this matter. Liberal Premier Frank McKenna, of his province of New Brunswick, has said that ACOA, created by a Conservative government, is perhaps the best tool for regional development and diversification ever seen in Atlantic Canada.
That is part of the response of the government to ensure that Atlantic Canadians can play a full and equal-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. members:: Order!


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister that Premier McKenna is a Liberal premier who cares a lot about people, which is a lot more than the government does for Atlantic Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in response to a question by the hon. member for Cape Breton-Highlands-Canso, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans tried to evade the issue of community quotas.
Canadians in the Atlantic region want to know whether the minister will exercise his authority and let communities like Canso keep their trawlers to maintain their fishing capacity until such time as the fish stocks return.
The government must chose between the survival of these communities or company profits. The fate of Canso will be that of all other fishing communities on the Atlantic coast. I ask the government and this minister: Whose side are they on?
Oral Questions


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the government is very much on the side of the people, fishermen, plant workers and residents of the communities of Atlantic Canada.
The government is committed to the survival of these communities. That is why the minister responsible for ACOA and I have just come from a meeting with Mayor Ray White and a delegation from the community of Canso. We are exploring every viable option with the community of Canso and all Atlantic Canada communities so they can have a bright, prosperous and secure future.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, I would like to address a question to my good friend the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday I was in St. John's to attend a meeting convened by the Federation of Labour and Municipalities to deal with the mounting crisis in the offshore and inshore fisheries in that province. The consensus shared by plant workers, fishermen, community leaders, labour leaders, politicians of all stripes, including three of his friends from the Senate of Canada, overwhelmingly agreed that fish plant closures are not the solution to the current problem. There was another consensus, too, that the Prime Minister has not yet seized with the urgency of this important issue.
Will the government and the Prime Minister undertake to meet with the organizers of yesterday's meeting with a view to keeping those inshore and offshore plants open until such time as the stocks rebuild?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, if the closings of fish plants are not the solution to the problem, I hope the hon. member will deliver a message to Premier Wells of Newfoundland who has clearly and explicitly stated that the fish plants involved in Newfoundland are going to be closing next year and that there is no alternative to their closing. His policy is that these plants have to close, although the government provided some assistance to see that the notice period was extended from three months by an additional year. The clear policy of the Government of Newfoundland, led by the hon. gentleman's friend Premier Wells, is that the fish plants have to close because

February 20, 1990
Oral Questions
there is no alternative. I trust his message will go forward to the premier.
In the meantime, we intend to do whatever we can to see that every possible plant continues to stay open, including the utilization of the unallocated quotas for underutilized species which the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has arranged. We intend to do everything we can to see that they survive.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister and the conference sends their love to him. They missed him yesterday.
My supplementary question is directed to the minister. He can try all he wants to slough off the problem onto Premier Wells, whom he has also psyched out on the countervail issue. The minister will be aware that back in 1987 when FPI was privatized the government of which he was a part entered into an agreement whereby the government can oppose the closure of fish plants such as Gaultois, Grand Bank and Trepassey, the three mentioned in the FPI closure announcement. Has the government exercised its option in that agreement to protect those three plants and the 1,500 workers involved? If it has not done so, why has it not done so and will he now undertake to do so to protect those 1,500 jobs until the stocks rebuild?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is referring to an agreement under which either the Government of Canada or the Government of Newfoundland have an option if Fishery Products concludes that it has to close a fish plant. It has to notify both governments and either government has an option to advise Fishery Products Limited that it is not to close some particular plant. The government, whichever government it is that exercises that option, will put up all necessary moneys to see that the plant runs and that any losses are met. That of course would be an action that would result in a countervailable situation in the United States or elsewhere where the country has laws with respect to free trading and with respect to fair trading.


Roger Simmons: Why did you sign it then?


John Carnell Crosbie: That would not be an option. Even in the medium or long term, that would not be an option that
one would want to pursue. There have to be other methods found for plants to continue to operate other than direct subsidization by the government.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
When the minister appeared before the Senate committee examining Bill C-21, she said the following:
The worst misconception of all is that there are no jobs available. The fact is that studies, surveys and our own experiences tell us that there are jobs available, that jobs are available all across Canada, and that given active rather than simply passive support, the unemployed are better able and more likely to take advantage of these opportunities.
Appearing before the same committee the Deputy Minister of Labour from Newfoundland said:
The evidence from Statistics Canada publications indicates the desire to work exists, but the jobs are not there right now-To put it bluntly, then, there is simply not enough work to go around.
My question to the minister is this. The minister tells us that she has studies that show that there are jobs everywhere in Canada. Will the minister stand up now in the House and tell us where the jobs are in Quebec with unemployment at 10.5 per cent and in Newfoundland where unemployment is 16.7 per cent? Can she stand up and tell us where are the jobs specifically in Canso, the Burin Peninsula, and Belle Isle? Specifically, we want to know that. No mussing, no fussing.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the hon. member has been reading the debates, but I am sorry that he did not read them quite closely enough.
I acknowledged that there were more jobs in some parts of Canada than there were in others, but then I went on to say that part of the problem in all parts of Canada is that there is a mismatch between the skills of workers and the jobs available. That is true even in areas where unemployment is higher than we in this government would like it to be. The surveys of the people who we serve through unemployment-
February 20, 1990


Coline M. Campbell: The people don't want to hear that any more. They want action.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Maybe the hon. member would like to listen to the answer.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the people whom we listen to are the people we serve through unemployment insurance and through our own offices across Canada. They themselves are telling us that they believe they are unable to get the jobs that are available because they do not have the skills. That is why this bill is important, because it is going to give them the skills.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister. I would like to say to the minister, in all sincerity, that people in Atlantic Canada do not want any more surveys. They do not want her personal experiences. They do not want StatsCan statistics. What they want are jobs. That's what they want. Jobs.
In light of the fact that the minister has admitted that there are no jobs in Newfoundland, that there are no jobs in Nova Scotia, and that there is no industrial infrastructure there, will the minister agree that she will withdraw Bill C-21 rather than exacerbate an already deplorable situation?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the man is misquoting me right in front of my very eyes. Let me point out to him that in 1989 over 8,000 jobs were created in Newfoundland outside the St. John's metropolitan area. That is true in every region of Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: The workers of Canada do not want more rhetoric and more shouting about this bill when they know that this bill is going to provide them with the skills and training that they need, to say nothing of the other benefits in this bill which include women in Canada who are expecting babies who are asking for parental benefits and people over age 65 who are looking for their benefits.
All of that is in this bill, and I am surprised the hon. member is not ashamed of himself for paying no attention to them.
Oral Questions


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question is for the same minister. The people in Newfoundland are now trembling in anticipation. They are really fearful that with the fish plant closures and the cut-back in the quotas for fishing about 4,000 people will be added to the unemployment rolls.
Will the minister not admit that in fact there is high unemployment in Newfoundland and that there are not the jobs in Newfoundland for these people to take? Will she not admit that putting Bill C-21, the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, into effect will exacerbate an already serious situation? Will she not take the advice, dare I say it, from the other place and withdraw the bill?


Barbara Jean McDougall: No, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that I will not withdraw the bill. He is failing to notice that in the higher unemployment areas of Canada this bill is very sensitive to those needs.
One of the things that we do for people involved in the fishing industry is that we remove the penalty for seasonal workers who repeat through the system. That is good for the people of Newfoundland as they are going through a difficult time. It will help us in terms of both training and regional development, which go together. You cannot have one without the other.
That is what this government recognizes, and that is what the NDP always fails to recognize.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance.
Electricity is vital. Its uses and users are limitless. The minister was sent a resolution from the municipality of Nepean which outlined the injurious effects a GST on electricity would have on the poor, on industry, and on the economy.
Given that taxing electricity is inconsistent with the government's own stated objectives of exempting standard municipal services, how can the minister justify taxing this essential service, yet another blow to the poor in this country?

February 20, 1990
Oral Questions


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the hon. member and her colleagues on that side of the Blouse that they should make maximum use of the recess we are going to have next week to study very carefully the technical documents that we have produced, because day after day we get questions.
Yesterday it was on transportation when we know that companies can get a full tax input for their transportation. Today it is on electricity when we know that lower income people will have more money in their pockets after reform than they had before.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, it is a pity that that information would not be readily available on the minister's own GST hot line.
According to the Municipal Electrical Association of Ontario, on hydro utilities costs from the manufacturers' sales tax are less than 1 per cent of purchased goods. In Ontario alone, 1991 electrical sales will be $8 billion.
The difference between a minus 1 per cent MST and a plus 7 per cent GST on service is astronomical and is yet another indication of this government's lack of concern for the people of Canada. Where is the conscience of this government that it will overcharge on a very essential service to Canadians?
| Translation]


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, once again, I wish to inform the hon. member that we have done some very accurate studies on the impact of tax reform, particularly on low-income Canadians. We are prepared to guarantee our findings to the effect that a family with an income below $30,000 will be better off after the tax reform. If the hon. member is able to produce figures that indicate the opposite, she should do so.


1991 CENSUS


Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Statistics Canada.
The 1986 census contained four questions concerning disabled Canadians. These questions have been used by
Statistics Canada to produce data for the government and private sector to ensure that services are provided for disabled Canadians.
Will the minister tell the House if he intends to include questions regarding the disabled in the 1991 census, and what will these questions be?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the precise questions for the 1991 census have not yet been put together. Discussions are under way with all of the users of StatsCan data.
The questions in terms of disabled Canadians and so on will be included if that is the recommendation that comes back after discussions with the people who would use this data.


Elizabeth  (Beth) Phinney: Mr. Speaker, the minister would not tell the House what questions concerning disabled Canadians will be on the census. Statistics Canada will not tell us what questions will be on the census, and the minister's staff tells us that it is top secret. Why all the secrecy?
My supplementary question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Is the government afraid that the questions it intends to include in the census will not satisfy the concerns that disabled Canadians want addressed in the census? Is this another example of this government's back room, closed door decision making?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right. I cannot tell her the questions that will be on the 1991 census for the very simple reason, as I explained in my first reply to her, that the questions have not been decided upon yet. They will be decided upon after full discussion with all of the users of the data.
The hon. member has been watching old films of the rat pack. Why this accusatory tone in her questioning? This is silly.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, despite denials by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans about the secret Pacific fisheries policy called Vision 2000, his department
February 20, 1990

continues day by day to implement its key recommendations.
I would like to ask the minister of fisheries if he would confirm that Vision 2000 states that under current Conservative policy B.C. native claims will not be settled for 50 to 100 years, one-half the commercial fishermen will be forced out of the industry, pollution and habitat destruction will be allowed to dramatically increase, and what is left of the fisheries will be turned over to a few large corporations?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Of course none of that is true, Mr. Speaker. Three years ago I created an advisory group to advise the ministry and the government on west coast fisheries policy. It is called the Pacific Regional Council, and that body comprises broad representation within the industry, although the fishermen's union chose not to participate as part of that group.
That group suggested that the department embark on a project of looking into the 1990s with a view to deciding what options we had for guiding the fishery into the 21st century. That process is called Vision 2000. An internal working document has apparently been made public. I have not read it, but that document lays out a number of options.
I have indicated to the industry, in meeting with it last week in British Columbia, that this is strictly a discussion paper and full consultation will precede any changes of policy which might flow from such a process.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister should read it. He in fact appointed the members of this committee who have apparently produced it along with his own officials. I spoke to some of his officials, and they have been participating in this. It seems that the contents of it are only secret to the minister, because it states on page 1: "To ensure that this vision meets political values-Pacific fisheries policy must result in a long-term real decrease in the commitment of government resources to Pacific fisheries management".
Would the minister confirm to this House-and I think he should be able to because I raised it with him privately yesterday-that this month, for the first time in history, B.C. fishermen are being required to hire and take aboard private sector police as observers at a cost of $3,500 per trip?
Oral Questions
Does the minister not understand what has gone on in Atlantic Canada? We do not want that virus on the west coast. Will he scrap the policies proposed in Vision 2000 and admit that enforcement is a federal government responsibility and applying these kinds of charges will drive B.C. fishermen out of the industry and into bankruptcy, or is that part of his plan?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, it is remarkable that the one political party that is forever talking about improving things is unprepared and afraid to look into the future and to plan for the future. In fact they are more conservative than the Progressive Conservatives themselves.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Edward Siddon: They are afraid of change.


Mr. Peterson:: That's the worst indictment you could impose on them. It's a terrible indictment.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking the government and the minister of fisheries to condone wasteful overfishing and dumping of fish at sea. Where observers are required to effectively police the fishery, those observers shall be provided on vessels whether they are sailing along the Atlantic or the Pacific coast.
^ ^ ^


SENIOR WORKERS ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM
Mrs. Carole Jacques (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, on February 16 this year, we heard that an agreement had been concluded between the Government of Quebec and the federal Minister of Labour, providing that $13 million will be paid to 233 older workers involved in major lay-offs by Quebec companies, and this as part of the Older Workers Adjustment Program. My question to the Minister of Labour is as follows: Will older workers laid off by companies in my riding also benefit under this agreement?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the hon. member for Mercier shows an active concern for older workers who have been laid off in her riding and I can confirm that on February 18 this year, we signed an agreement with the Quebec Labour and Income Security Department to designate eight companies in Quebec where older workers had been laid off and allow the application of the Older Workers Adjustement Program, adopted in this House during the past year. For the benefit of the hon. member, I can confirm that one of the industries in her

February 20, 1990
Oral Questions
riding, Canadian International Paper, was on the list, and that 30 older workers will benefit under this program.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand -Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment and is with regard to the tire fire in my riding.
While the federal government should not be interfering unless asked with provincial and municipal attempts to extinguish the fire, the federal government has the mandate through Emergency Preparedness Canada and the responsibility to monitor the fire, to be there, to know what is going on. The minister does not need a special invitation from the province of Ontario to do this. On Friday we saw a communication foul up between Ottawa and Toronto, wasting time and effort.
Would the minister not agree that these problems could be overcome if federal officials responsible for co-ordinating the federal response were on site so that these problems do not continue to happen?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, we have not waited for the member's comments to do that. We are doing exactly that now.
We have three scientists on the site now monitoring and analysing the air quality. We have people from Environment Canada on the site as well. There is a representative of the Canadian army there also monitoring the situation and getting ready to step in if we are requested to go there. We have also set up a task force at the federal level to co-ordinate the federal response to this disaster.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I am saying that there should be somebody there from the federal government co-ordinating its response.
My supplementary question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The minister should be aware that both the Six Nations and the Mississauga of the New Credit reserves are close to the fire. In fact they were one of the first areas evacuated.
What is the federal government's responsibility to federally regulated reserves during an environmental disaster such as this one? Why haven't federal officials from the minister's department been to the Six Nations to evaluate the situation there?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am told that our officials have been in communication with the chief of the Six Nations. We are well aware of the environmental difficulty there, and we are monitoring the situation very carefully.


JUSTICE
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and concerns a very serious question of racial discrimination which affects everyone in this House.
Yesterday B'nai Brith released its 1989 audit report indicating an increase in anti-Semitism in Canada. In fact it estimated by the number of reported cases that anti-Semitism has gone up by 57 per cent. There is also a great deal of acrimony that it has not seen before.
I would like to ask the minister what his ministry and members of this government are doing to help the association end the perception that those disseminating messages of hate need not fear prosecution. Can he not improve Canadian law to fight such outrageous behaviour?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend will know the Criminal Code prohibits the wilful promotion of hatred against identifiable groups. I am not trying to slide off the issue by suggesting that the attorneys general of the various provinces are in charge of prosecuting that under the Criminal Code. They have the full co-operation of my department wherever it occurs.
February 20, 1990


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, I respect the constitutional niceties that the Minister of Justice finds himself in, but Canadian society is changing and many groups are facing racial discrimination. For example, in addition to the group I mentioned in my previous question, the Sikh community is facing the problem of racial pins and anti-Sikh calendars.
What specific measures is the minister taking? Is he initiating federal-provincial conferences? Is he reviewing the Criminal Code? Is he meeting with the attorneys general across the country? Is he doing something to help Canadians feel they are not being discriminated against?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend knows that my colleague, the Secretary of State, has several programs under way with respect to this matter.


Coline M. Campbell: Money.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: You don't throw money at everything and fix it that way; you've to get to people's minds.
I would also point out that the Supreme Court of Canada presently has the hate propaganda legislation before it. It would be premature to make any changes in the law until we see what the Supreme Court of Canada suggests.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to members' attention the presence in the gallery of Jana Petrova, member of the Federal Assembly of Czechoslovakia.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


INVESTMENT CANADA
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Investment Canada.
In a letter from the Deputy Minister of Industry and Trade in Manitoba dated December 22, 1989, bearing the wording "Confidential-Privileged Information'' with
Oral Questions
regard to the Johnson Controls takeover of Varta Batteries Ltd., the Deputy Minister stated:
I strongly object to the acquisition unless there are commitments to
maintain or to enhance the Manitoba employment base.
The letter goes on to say:
The Winnipeg plant of Varta Batteries Ltd. is a significant and
important component of the Manitoba economy, and closure is not an
acceptable course of action.
Why did neither the federal government nor the provincial government inform the workers that their jobs were being sacrificed in this American takeover? Further, why did the federal government completely ignore the secret pleas of the Manitoba government to keep this plant open?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the Varta plant that was taken over was in financial difficulties and in fact was on the verge of bankruptcy. Had that occurred of course the jobs would be lost, but lost in a circumstance where there would not be severance packages available and the kind of assistance that is available under a more orderly shutdown.
The purchase by Johnson Controls provided for a more orderly shutdown. There was an offer of jobs, admittedly in another province, but nevertheless for some of the employees there was that offer, and there were the usual reasonable accommodations made for the employees who were leaving.
Any time Investment Canada is faced with a merger situation it consults the provinces affected. It consulted, not in any secret way, the province of Manitoba. If there were significant reasons given by Manitoba why this should not be allowed to go ahead or if they had alternatives then those would be listened to, but I am not aware of any such thing having occurred.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I again refer the minister to the letter which was sent in confidence-it was privileged information-to Investment Canada on December 22, 1989.
In addition to that, when the sale finally became public in February the company said that it cost too much to send 400,000 batteries to eastern Canada. Was the government aware that that same company is now going to have to send 400,000 batteries to western Canada? That information was not available because the workers were never consulted. Why were they not consulted?

February 20, 1990
Oral Questions


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, obviously that privileged, confidential letter was not considered that way by whoever sent it, having given a copy to the hon. member.
The hon. member is talking about the operations of the company in terms of whether it is more economic to make the batteries here and ship them there or vice versa. I know he has a great belief in decisions about the operations of companies being made by politicians as being superior to those that are made by the marketplace.
The fact is that this company was going bankrupt. The managers were not able to operate it in a financially viable way. It is possible; there have never been any examples on earth, but we have to admit the theoretical possibility that had the company been run by somebody like the hon. member perhaps it would have made a profit. In the circumstances there was no other alternative.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence and it is with regard to the fire in Hagersville as well.
It is my understanding that at Camp Borden, which is about one and a half hours away from the fire, a fire-fighting school already exists. In view of the short distance involved, why have those resources not been used in fighting this fire?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's information is correct. There is a Canadian Forces fire-fighting school located at Camp Borden.
I also would like to inform the hon. member that earlier this day an offer was made by the Department of National Defence to provide fire-fighters from that school and other military personnel to the Emergency Measures Organization of Ontario and to the municipality.
Before two o'clock this afternoon that offer was rejected. We were informed that the Government of Ontario and the Emergency Measures Organization felt that they had the equipment that was necessary, that
they had the capability and that they had the problem under control.
I would also inform the hon. member that there is at present a liaison officer of the Canadian Forces in Hagersville to monitor. I can also inform him that the fire-fighting school and CF personnel are on 24-hour standby and would respond to a request.


BILINGUAL LABELLING
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Canadian manufacturers must spend substantial sums of money to conform to the standards for bilingual labelling. Meanwhile, Americans export tons of items to Canada with labels in English only. This puts our manufacturing sector at a disadvantage and is a threat to bilingualism, which goes against the government's commitment to Canadians during the last election campaign.
What does the minister intend doing to remedy this unacceptable situation?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as we announced last October, we have in co-operation with Customs and Excise and the Department of National Revenue stepped up inspections at the border of goods coming in to ensure they are properly labelled.
We have, in addition, got together with the association representing 90 per cent of the food retailers in this country to get their voluntary co-operation to ensure that goods on their shelves are properly labelled.
We are taking the necessary action to that ensure Canadian law is fully complied with.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, they cannot possibly be taking the necessary action because there are only 160 inspectors across Canada to police the language regulations of the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act and the Food and Drug Act, which is woefully insufficient. The minister knows that complaints against illegal labelling of Ameri-
February 20, 1990

can goods coming into Canada has increased by four times in the last year.
What is the minister to do to protect the manufacturers of this country and the linguistic duality of our nation?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, there are 3,000 Customs officers at the border performing this function of enforcing Canadian laws, as well as the inspectors.
Basically we have a law that is proper and we enforce it to the best of our ability, much the same as the police enforce speeding laws. We cannot guarantee that every single product will be properly labelled without putting in a huge number of inspectors at huge costs and putting a huge bureaucratic burden upon the very manufacturers about whose prospects he is concerned.
I am sure the hon. member would not want me to go out and hire the thousands and thousands of label cops necessary to ensure that every single product at all times is properly labelled. We do an excellent job and Canadian manufacturers have their interests fully protected.


TOURISM
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism), my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Does the minister responsible for tourism realize that current economic pessimism, combined with unprecedented tax increases and disastrous interest rates, threatens the survival of many small businesses and tourism? In the circumstances, could the minister explain why he cut the budget for tourism marketing at a time when we need it more than ever?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism, let me say that both he and I and the hon. member would love to have more money to invite and advertise to the entire
Oral Questions
world the tremendous beauty of this country and the fact that they are missing a great experience if they do not come here as tourists.
What we are doing, given the limitation of a significant deficit and the fact that the taxpayers are already burdened, is spending smarter. We will see tourism continue to grow in this country as a result of the initiatives of my colleague.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Regina-Lums-den, a single question.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, I would rather you had called Orders of the Day but I will take the question.


Mr. Speaker:: I must say to the hon. member that it is very tempting. Perhaps a short question.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I only get one once every two or three months, now I have five of them.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. The National Transportation Agency has served notice of its intention to remove regulations over passenger rail service in this country. This includes rescinding the declaration that VIA Rail services are passenger train services, and allowing VIA Rail to make its own decisions on routing and frequency of routes even though the royal commission appointed by the minister has not had a chance to give an interim report.
Will the minister request the National Transportation Agency not to proceed with this until the royal commission has issued an interim report and will he ensure that the eight protected routes are kept in place regardless of what the National Transportation Agency does?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think with the experience my friend has, he knows very well that the agency has decided itself to take this initiative. It is not coming from the Department of Transport.
I think it is a fair concern when he raises the question of VIA Rail services, remote services and the royal commission. Obviously we will consider the process used by the National Transportation Agency. The government will consider the proposals but he knows very well that it is the agency's own initiative and the Department of

February 20, 1990
Speaker's Ruling
Transport or the Minister of Transport does not have the authority to stop the NTA in that kind of investigation.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk, on a point of order.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, as you know, this morning at eleven o'clock I was not in my seat. As you also know, I made a request under Standing Order 52 to be heard by you for an emergency debate on the very crucial situation in my riding regarding the Hagersville tire fire. I am wondering if we might find unanimous consent to revert to S. O. 52s, because at eleven o'clock I was in a very important discussion regarding this matter and I was not able to hear your decision on that.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member seeks to revert to Routine Proceedings. The hon. member was very frank with the House. He was not in his seat when the matter ordinarily would have been called. I had notice of it, of course. I am in the hands of the House.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, for our part we understand that from time to time members cannot be in their place to make applications under Standing Order 52. In view of the importance of the issue, we are prepared to hear the application now.


Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon -Clark's Crossing):: I rise on the same point, Mr. Speaker. The New Democratic Party would be only too pleased to allow the member to proceed.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member.
The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S. O. 52 HAGERSVILLE FIRE
Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I will not indulge the House, and I thank all parties for allowing me to do this.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, you received a letter from me today regarding the very crucial situation in my riding concerning the Hagersville tire fire.
As the minister knows, I specifically requested a debate on this issue to let Canadians and, indeed, the people in my riding know the government's response to this matter.


HAGERSVILLE FIRE-SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. Minister of Justice and the hon. member from the New Democratic Party for extending the courtesy to the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk who naturally is extremely concerned about the matter, as are all hon. members.
This is not his first application, as hon. members will know, nor is it the only application that I have had for an emergency debate.
However, I have to say-and I say this specifically to Canadians living in that area-that the whole House, and it has been made very clear treats the matter as very, very serious indeed. There has been extensive discussion in the House over the last several days with respect to the situation and with respect to what, if anything, this House could do to expedite the solution of the matter or to encourage assistance to be given.
There have been comments on the government side and on the opposition side which indicate a sense here in the House that any help that could be given would be given.
But I must say that serious as it is, with respect to the exchanges and possible exchanges we may have, it would not be appropriate to adjourn the proceedings of the day and move to an emergency debate.
I do want to say to the hon. member and to other hon. members who have raised this matter that I treat it as serious. I think that there can be some assurance to the public that the House has treated it as very serious indeed.
I thank the hon. member for bringing the matter to our attention.


BUDGET STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE-SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: This morning the hon. member for Kamloops raised a point of order concerning the budget presentation which will be delivered later this day. He wished to obtain clarification as to whether or not the questions and comments period which generally applies to members speaking for 20 minutes should apply to the upcoming speech by the Minister of Finance on the budget.
February 20,1990

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands addressed in some detail specific recent precedents and examined carefully the text of the relevant Standing Orders. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader reviewed recent interpretations given to the standing orders on this issue, as did the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. I want to thank all hon. members for their contributions.
After considering the issue, as I said I would this morning, the Chair is now ready to render a decision. Since hon. members did present such detailed arguments, I will not review again in detail the precedents cited.
As most hon. members will be aware, the standing orders of the House of Commons concerning the period of questions and comments were first adopted in November 1982, following recommendations by the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, commonly referred to as the Lefebvre Committee. The committee suggested that "the amendments to the appropriate standing orders be as simple as possible, but that the new debating process be controlled by the Chair", according to certain guidelines.

The House subsequently adopted amendments to its Standing Orders to incorporate this new procedure. The operative sentence in present Standing Order 84(7) reads:
Following the speech of each Member a period not exceeding ten minutes shall be made available, if required, to allow Members to ask questions and comment briefly on matters relevant to the speech and to allow responses thereto.
While it is true that when this new rule first came into practice in late 1982 it was unclear as to whether or not the question and comment period should apply only to 20 minute speeches or to the longer speeches as well. There is the precedent in December 9, 1983, where the Speaker stated that according to the rules the 10-minute period could be allowed following the unlimited speeches in the Address debate.
Just so that all hon. members will understand that, as well as the public that is listening, it has been the custom
Speaker's Ruling
to have unlimited time for the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Official Opposition and, out of courtesy, others.
As a courtesy to the Prime Minister and Leader of the Official Opposition, however, the 10-minute period was not used on that occasion. Several subsequent incidents in the House show members seeking unanimous consent to allow a question and comment period, implying that such consent was a requirement in order to allow this period.
On June 7, 1985, the Chair was called upon to interpret whether this 10-minute questions and comments period should apply to members who were entitled to speak for more than 20 minutes. The Acting Speaker stated that those who have unlimited time do not have a question or comment period.
No instances could be found in our practice where the question and comment period was allowed following a budget speech. Indeed, our practice since 1984 has been consistent in not allowing a question and comment period following anything but 20 minute speeches, except by unanimous consent. This interpretation of the rules is now regarded as a practice of the House and the occupants of the chair have conducted themselves accordingly.
I thank the hon. members for permitting the Chair to clarify the current practice in this matter.
However, the hon. member for Kamloops presents a valid argument about the fairness to a third party of this and other rules governing speeches. The suggestion has been made, however, that these issues be examined by the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Members' Business. This might be a course that hon. members will wish to pursue.
I might also add that I am indebted to the hon. member for Kamloops for a very succinct argument this morning. If it had not been for the clear evidence of a continual practice in this matter, looking at the words of the order itself and other similar orders that were referred to in the Standing Orders I might well have, if I had been making this decision some years ago, come to a different decision. Perhaps the wording ought to be looked at.

February 20, 1990
Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard (Roberval), that Bill C-26, an act to amend the Railway Act (grain and flour subsidies), be now read a second time and referred to a Legislative Committee; and on the amendment of Ms. Clancy (p. 8227)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When the House rose at one o'clock we had just concluded hearing the remarks of the hon. member for Egmont. I see that it is not possible now to proceed with the question and comment period.
We will then resume debate with the hon member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing.


Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, it is quite clear that there is a crisis in Atlantic Canada, particularly as a result of the decline of its main industry, the fishery. Under the circumstances one would expect the federal government to be supportive of that region, to assist in economic development and social adjustment and to assist in efforts to build the economy.
As the Atlantic economy has gone from great difficulty to crisis this government has watched and waited. Like Nero who fiddled while Rome burned, this government has sat on the sidelines not helping the region in its time of need.
We have seen large numbers of government programs and amendments to government policies which have worsened the situation in Atlantic Canada. Today, we are discussing one further negative implication for that region, Bill C-26.
These policy alternatives of the government have continued to make an already grave situation worse. We have seen VIA Rail cuts which have hurt the region. We have seen amendments to unemployment insurance which have hurt the region. We have seen cuts to regional economic expansion programs which have hurt the region. We have seen high interest rates and a high dollar which have made it more difficult for that region's products to be competitive. We have seen cuts to the
provinces for health and post-secondary education. As well, we have seen the beginnings of the introduction of the goods and services tax.
These are all policies of this government which further harm the economy of Atlantic Canada and further hurt Canadian families in that region. Of course, the approach of the Progressive Conservative government to the regions has been its typical, obsessive, philosophically driven, free enterprise mentality. Pragmatism and common sense are thrown to the wind, as are Canadians and their families thrown on the scrap heap.
The government appears to have forgotten, or it does not care that vicious budget cuts throw people out of work and take food from the mouths of their children and themselves. People suffer from these PC policies, and suffer dearly. Tory times are indeed tough times for ordinary Canadians and their families.
This is not so for the wealthy and for large corporations, or for the economically strong regions of Canada. The less well off regions and middle and lower income Canadians suffer greatly. Neo-conservatism and this Progressive Conservative government on the one hand and the less well off on the other hand clearly do not mix.
Today, we are considering Bill C-26, a further blow to the Atlantic Canadian economy. The at and east program which is being eliminated by Bill C-26 pays a subsidy to railways on export grain and flour moving through eastern Canadian ports.
This program was introduced in part to ensure that the ports of Halifax and Saint John, two important ports which are ice-free in the winter, could handle grain effectively and efficiently. The program has proved very beneficial to Halifax and Saint John. Almost a million tonnes of grain and flour were moved through these ports under the at and east program.
The elimination of this program will take about $30 million and 573 direct jobs, as well as 250 indirect jobs, out of the Maritime economy, an economy which is already suffering greatly from the decline of its main resource.
Further, the elevators at Halifax and Saint John will almost certainly close, meaning further job losses. If the Halifax elevator closes the only flour mill in Atlantic Canada will close, causing even further job losses. Livestock producers in the Maritime provinces will
February 20, 1990

suffer too, as will local breweries as their supplies become more expensive.
The elimination of the at and east program will constitute a major blow to an Atlantic economy already reeling from high unemployment, high interest rates and a high dollar. This is just one more attack on Atlantic Canada and reflects the uncaring and callous approach of this Conservative government to Atlantic Canada and to the less well off regions of Canada generally.
We have heard a great deal of the $130 million which have been set aside for Atlantic Canada in its time of crisis. This $130 million is merely money which was already set aside for Atlantic Canada prior to the crisis and constitutes no help for that region at all.
It is time the government stopped attacking the less well off regions and the less well off Canadians and started helping them. What Canadians need is a helping hand, not an iron fist. They need a leg up, not a kick in the teeth.
The government should listen to those who care about the regions of Canada, who care about Atlantic Canada and who care about Canadian families. It is well past time that this government started listening and acting on behalf of what ordinary Canadians suggest to it. It should not just follow blindly the agenda of the big business community.
For example, the government could listen to the suggestions of the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission which has already suggested that serious economic consequences for these maritime ports will take place as a result of the removal of the at and east program and will adversely affect the movement of export grain and flour through these ports. In addition, as I have suggested, the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission has indicated that grain elevator operations, port and railway employment and flour milling will all suffer as a result of the cut back in this program.
As a result, the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission proposed certain modifications to the program which would reduce the demand on the federal treasury, would lessen or eliminate distortions and inefficiencies and would maintain the movement of export
Government Orders
grain and flour through the Atlantic ports. In particular, the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission was concerned to ensure the maintenance of the grain elevators as viable units at Halifax and Saint John, to ensure the maintenance of a commercially viable flour mill in Halifax and to ensure a flow of export grain and flour through the Atlantic ports.
This recommendation was presented to the government. The government did not even respond to it. The government is not listening to those in the region who are suggesting alternatives which can help that region and respond to the government's concerns.
The government should reconsider its approach. It should reconsider its bill. It should pay attention to the advice it gets and take seriously the concerns of the people of Atlantic Canada.
This bill was brought in with no consultation. Those who are affected by this bill did not have the matter discussed with them, and certainly did not suggest to the government any support for this proposal. As I said, it follows on the heels of other major attacks on the economy and social fabric of Atlantic Canada.
One last point which should be brought to bear on this point is that the CP line joining Montreal to Saint John may have to close due to reduced tonnage should this subsidy be removed. This would prevent VIA's Atlantic Limited from plying that route, a VIA Rail line which so many maritimers have fought so hard to keep.
Atlantic Canadians deserve better than this from this government. Atlantic Canadians deserve to be listened to. They deserve programs which help and assist them in their efforts to maintain a viable economy.


Mr. Crosby:: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's remarks and remarks that were previously made in the House.
I hope the member recognizes the position taken by the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission. That position does not in any way support the continuance of the at and east subsidy. Everybody associated with the port of Halifax, with the agricultural industry and all other segments of industry involved with at and east recognizes that it is a poor kind of subsidization, that it does not give assistance to those who should receive

February 20,1990
Government Orders
assistance. Nobody has ever suggested that the at and east should be maintained, as far as I am aware.
I would like to ask the member this question. Is his position that the bill before the House should not be passed, that the at and east should be retained and another $40 million should flow into the coffers of the railway company with very marginal benefits to the agricultural industry in Nova Scotia, to the port of Halifax, to the port of Saint John? Or would he prefer some other kind of method to assist those valuable sections of our economy-the port trade, the agricultural industry and so on?
Is he saying that he wants this anomaly that it no longer has the basis that it had when it was first introduced in 1961 to continue? Is that his idea of progress? Is that what the member wants to maintain, the status quo regardless of the advantages of maintaining the status quo?


Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.
If he had listened carefully to the point that I had been making with regard to the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission, he would have known that I was suggesting that the government pay attention to the recommendations of that commission and that the government reconsider its proposals in Bill C-26 and make real changes to the program which can ensure the economic viability of both the ports of Halifax and Saint John and preserve the jobs and the contribution to the economy which the program has provided.
There are 500 jobs at stake in an already fragile economy. It is important for the government to respond positively to those workers and to respond positively to the need to ensure that maritime farmers, the maritime brewing industry and the local economy be supported as much as possible.
What I am suggesting is that the government reconsider this bill and consider changes which will make the at and east program one which deals with the problems which are at stake. To discard it altogether, throwing 570 people on the scrap heap, along with their families, as well as a couple of hundred indirect jobs is simply not acceptable.


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, I am sure if the member examined the situation he would very quickly discover
that the difficulty with continuing the at and east is that it was intended to make competitive the east coast ports with ports in the United States of America. That situation no longer exists with respect to the movement of grain and flour traffic.
The competition is between St. Lawrence ports and east coast ports. If the at and east is removed the east coast ports would require some assistance to remain competitive. But all the jobs and all the money will stay within Canada in any event.
I take it the member is suggesting that the St. Lawrence ports should lose their advantage over east coast ports. I agree with the member if that is his position. I agree that there should not be special advantages to St. Lawrence ports or with the east coast ports. I hope he will make that position very clear and bring with it the support of his party for this disadvantage that has been retained over the last few decades in favour of St. Lawrence ports.
The difficulty is that in order to right the advantages and to make both east coast ports and St. Lawrence ports competitive we on the east coast need some further competitive edge. That competitive edge can be delivered if ice-breaking charges are imposed with respect to movements flowing through St. Lawrence ports.
I would like to ask the member if he is so interested in the at and east and he is so interested in the welfare of east coast ports-and his party backs him-why did they not act in this House to ensure that charges would be made against vessels using the St. Lawrence ports. Why did they fail to back that measure when it was before the House of Commons?


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of changes which can be made to the at and east program to ensure that the Halifax and Saint John ports remain viable in terms of exporting grain. We should take every effort we can to ensure that that is the case.
I think by removing the subsidy which this bill attempts to do we do indeed favour central Canadian ports. We should be ensuring that those Atlantic ports, the two which are open throughout the winter, are indeed given the preferences they need in order to sustain themselves. We should be looking at the total support program which is represented by at and east to ensure that that continues.
February 20, 1990


Mr. Whittaker:: Madam Speaker, first, I would like to compliment the member on his expertise in this area. He obviously has done his work. I would like to pick up on something that he said. It is about this Conservative party that is so hard and harsh on the people in the regions. Those from the Golden Triangle feel that everything they have they are going to keep yet those in the regions are being hit harder and harder.
I spoke to a woman from Newfoundland this morning. She talked about the GST and some of the attitudes of this government toward small business and others in Atlantic Canada. I am from the west, as is the member who was making comments, and he should know also that those of us in the regions and not in the Golden Triangle of central Canada realize that this government is on a strange journey that is going to hurt those of us in the east and west.
This woman in Newfoundland pointed out that one of the things missing from this government to those of us outside central Canada is communication. This government has let communication break down a substantial amount. It keeps throwing money and saying it is communicating, but in fact it is trying to send its agenda out and sell it.
What we have run into in the finance committee and every committee that sits is how to sell our programs. The government spends millions and millions of dollars in this way instead of actually listening to the people.
The member mentioned the goods and services tax, cuts in regional programs, cuts in VIA Rail, high interest rates, health and post-secondary education cuts. Can he make a comment to this House as to how he sees the lack of communication between government and the regions?


Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his comments. Perhaps "expertise" is a little strong, but I did live in Halifax for nine years prior to moving to Saskatoon. Therefore I have some understanding of the issues there. Unlike the Prime Minister, I have been to Newfoundland and to Atlantic Canada in recent months to assess the situation there.
Government Orders
Clearly the situation is an extremely grave one. The government is not paying attention to Atlantic fishermen and their families. It is not paying attention to those in that region. This point was made to me on many occasions during my recent visits through the outports of Newfoundland.
It is time the government paid attention to these concerns. It is time the government listened and acted in a way which is necessary in this case, that is, it recognizes the magnitude of the problems that Atlantic Canada is facing.


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to debate Bill C-26 and to argue against the principle of this legislation and against the principles the government has embodied not only within this legislation, but the very manner in which this legislation was brought forward.
The change to eliminate the at and east grain and flour subsidy, a program that has assisted in the orderly marketing of grain and assisted in providing the impetus to create a milling industry for exports since the 1950s was cancelled in the budget, as was the Advance Payments for Crops and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments programs. Its role and purpose in the budget papers has been intentionally obscured.
The actual purpose, according to the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill, the Liberal Minister of Transport who introduced the program in 1966, was to ensure that eastern Canadian ports could compete with the U.S. ports, and to enable the ports of Halifax and Saint John to compete with Montreal and other St. Lawrence River ports.
Further, as the minister stated then: "According to the Board of Transport Commissioners these rates are already unremunerative-We decided to keep these rates at their present level to pay compensation for doing so. This is because we feel there is an equal obligation in this field to the obligation with regard to the Crow's Nest. The purpose of this is to ensure that we will have rates which will provide some inducement and incentive to shippers to use the facilities of the Atlantic ports." This was was from Hansard committee report, transport and communications, 1966, page 1669.
However, since the budget papers fail to mention the second and third reasons, should we assume that this is because they will be eliminated in the next budget and are no longer relevant, or is the minister attempting to

February 20, 1990
Government Orders
hide the real reasons behind the elimination of this and other agricultural programs?
I would also point out that this program was cancelled without warning, without consultation. Certainly, in the preceding election the Prime Minister or his cabinet failed to mention plans for cancelling this or other agricultural programs, undermining orderly marketing.
It was cancelled despite the fact that three government reports-and I will be fair about this, these reports did point to some structural inefficiencies in the at and east, as there are bound to be in all programs-stated in one manner or another that if the at and east was cancelled, alternative programs to encourage export milling and alternative storage facilities would need to be introduced to protect the integrity of our orderly marketing systems.
So when the government says that it is not undermining orderly marketing by cancelling the program, one really has to wonder if it has even read its own reports.
Further, if it does tend to undermine orderly marketing, has this government introduced any alternative programs to meet these goals, and will it? What the government has done is cancel the interest provisions of the Advance Payments for Crops and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments which it knows will have serious consequences on the storage situation in Canada.
Every farm group in the country attempted to tell the government to leave that program alone. The government ignored them. The implementation of the changes in that program were so bungled and dragged out by the government for so long that the Minister of Grains and Oilseeds has since admitted that not issuing advance payments for crops and prairie grain advance payments was a mistake.
At that time we were in the opposition. We repeatedly asked the government to do what the minister now admits he ought to have done. But now he calls it a mistake. A mistake for him, or a mistake for the Canadian farmers who voted for this government thinking it would act in a manner beneficial for agriculture.
Did the government learn from its mistakes? Will the minister now recognize that leaving this program in a similar legislative limbo is likewise a mistake, or will we hear so three months down the road again how the minister regrets the mistaken manner in which these changes were handled?
The government has introduced what it calls a discussion paper on the future of agriculture. A discussion paper, when after the proverbial thief in the night, it has cut this program, the at and east, drastically altered crop insurance, and eliminated the excise fuel tax rebates all in a budget costing the average farmer $1,000 a year.
Did the government consult with the producer organizations before it cancelled the programs in the budget?
You do not have to take my word for it, Madam Speaker. Listen to what the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture said before the legislative committee studying Bill C-36, which is clearly true for this bill as well: "Certainly the CFA had no consultation. It was a surprise to see that particular item in the budget. I had not anticipated that item being there."
Yet the Minister of Agriculture in his green paper bemoans that there has developed, he says "an uncertain environment in which it is difficult for farmers to make long-term plans." Well perhaps instead of writing a green paper, he would have better spent his time consulting with farmers and defending their views from the knife of his colleague, the Minister of Finance, a minister who one can tell from reading his budget paper, has no idea of the purposes of the programs he is cutting.
You may very well be wondering yourself what is the principle behind this onslaught against agriculture, Madam Speaker, what principle guides it. It is a hidden agenda that is hidden no more. We have seen many of the masks this government holds, drop. Universality was the first to go, quickly followed by an Americanization of the unemployment insurance program.
In agriculture, the groundwork has begun to dismantle orderly marketing in Canada. Weak arguments and defences have been offered at the GATT to allow the government to create a defence for its lack of action, a defence that these changes are being made by a force of international sanction, that their hands are tied.
February 20, 1990

The truth is that the government is not defending the interests of Canada's producers. If it was, it would not be cancelling programs such as this which help maintain our export markets in the face of continued use by the U.S. and others of programs like like the Export Enhancement Program which funded grain exports to the tune of $1.5 billion in 1988, $0.7 billion in 1989, $566 million this year, and over $900 million proposed for 1991.
A month ago, the Minister of Agriculture might have looked on these statistics as some kind of victory. He might very well have said of these statistics: "Look, the Export Enhancement Program has been cut. U.S. subsidies are declining." But only because the U.S. felt its markets could be defended at that rate. The U.S. doubled it for 1991 and, if they thought tomorrow that they would need to double again to maintain their markets, they would double it again. If they had the grain to export, they would double it.
The Canadian Wheat Board is no longer issuing permits for Durum exports because of charges that the U.S. importers were exporting Canadian grain under the U.S. export enhancement program. With regard to subsidies, did the Government of Canada say to the United States: "No, we won't do as you say, we will do as you do"? No, they didn't. They said: "Sure, we will do as you say, we will cancel our export assistance programs, and you just go ahead with your export enhancement program and commodity loan programs." And the government still has the nerve to say it is defending Canada's interests at the GATT.
The government chose to accept the report on ice cream and yogurt at the GATT. It could have refused to accept that report. It could have used that refusal to defend the interests of the dairy farmers of Canada. It could have used the refusal to negotiate a strengthening of Article 11, but it did not.
To this government the GATT is not a place of tough negotiations. It is not the GATT, it is the "GIVE". That is how the government negotiates for agriculture, by giving up our rights and our programs.
However, this point might be moot, for by 1992 when the latest GATT round of negotiations is complete, Canadian agriculture will have nothing left to negotiate with, if the next three budgets are like the last one.
Government Orders
There will be no government agricultural programs left and no orderly marketing left to defend.
What is happening must be clear to members opposite. If you have no storage capabilities, you cannot operate an orderly marketing system. By removing all the programs that allow producers to be able to afford to store crop, you force all the product on the market at once. You create a glut and orderly marketing is finished.
In 1980, there were 3,324 grain elevators in western Canada. Now there are only 1,619. Storage capacity in western Canada has shrunk from 8.76 million tonnes to only 7.1 million tonnes. The government has eliminated assistance in storing costs provided by the Advance Payments for Crops and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments. Now the at and east. What is left?
The Toronto Star reported that the elevators at Port McNicoll in Ontario will be blown up this spring, lessening storage facilities in Ontario by over 300,000 tonnes because of the cancelling of the at and east. It is not critics blaming the loss of the facilities on the cancelling of the at and east but the company that owns the elevators. One hundred jobs in Port McNicoll will be lost, a third of the town's tax base, let alone the damage that this will inflict on the orderly marketing of grain in Ontario.
A Minister of Transport report described the number one benefit of the program to the Ontario Grain Producers as "The at and east route helps to more efficiently utilize the limited storage and elevator space in the Georgian Bay-Great Lakes Region." Cancelling this program has already only further diminished the existing elevator space.
In the minister's green paper, he mentions the need for agriculture to be sustainable. In order to have sustainable agriculture, that literally means production within reasonable limits of what the environment can sustain over an indefinite length of time. There must be a system of orderly production and to have that you must have a system of orderly marketing.
You must have a pricing mechanism that provides a reasonable return for the producer and which allows the producer to use the land and the environment in a sustainable manner, not in an exploitive manner.
By removing the programs that assist in meeting storage needs, you undermine both of these things because they are interdependent. Gluts cause unreasonable returns which encourage the exploitation of the

February 20, 1990
Government Orders
environment because greater resources must be exploited in order to achieve that reasonable return.
It is simple, and because it is that simple, I do not understand why the government is acting in the manner that it is. I ask anyone who thinks otherwise to ponder these figures.
Canadian farmers are efficient. Canadian farmers are the most efficient in the world. I ask anyone who thinks otherwise to ponder these figures.
For example, milk production per cow has gone up 70 per cent in Canada since 1971. During the same period, milk yields rose only 46 per cent in the U.S. That is creating sustainable agriculture.
Or if one wants to judge efficiency by price, if we look at poultry we see that the real farmgate price of poultry has fallen by 30 per cent since the 1970s. The retail price has dropped just 10 per cent over the same period.
In terms of chicken, in 1982 the farmgate price of chicken represented 48 per cent of the final cost to the consumer. Now it accounts for only 30 per cent of the cost. Clearly, these figures demonstrate orderly marketing efficiency.
Members opposite might think that by piecemeal cutting of small useful programs the deficit and national debt can be reduced.
However, if that is really the case, then I suggest they read the 1989 Auditor General's report, pages 92 to 93. Encourage your Minister of Finance to close that $300 million loophole that benefits only large corporations. The minister says he will close it with the GST. By then, $1 billion will be lost. That $1 billion would pay the interest of the APC and PGAP for 37 years, or conversely, it will take 25 or 37 years without those programs to make up for that giveaway. The difference is that these programs provide a tangible, intentional benefit, while this tax giveaway only serves to line the pockets of large corporations in an unethical manner.
Further, I would suggest that destroying the orderly marketing will not eliminate the national debt, so why attempt to justify its destruction as debt reduction, unless you are trying to hide the fact. Is that what you are doing?
In conclusion, I just want to say that Canada has one of the greatest agricultural systems in the world. It is criminal what this government is doing to it in the name of debt reduction. Clearly, that is not what it is actually attempting to do, which is to dismantle orderly marketing.


Ron J. Duhamel: I do have one question for my colleague. I want to have him confirm, if I have understood correctly, that there was no consultation, no warning, no discussion prior to or during the election that this attempt to remove this particular program would be undertaken? I want to make sure I have that correct.
Second, if I am correct, this is very similar to what has been undertaken with the goods and services tax, the transfer payments to health and education to provinces, and the reduction in agricultural subsidies. I was wondering if there were other examples that come to mind of this particular approach to government.


Rex Crawford: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for St. Boniface for his questions. There was absolutely nothing mentioned about cuts before, after, or during the election campaign. If we get into that issue I would need another hour.
There was no mention of cuts. Also, in relation to the hon. member's second question on education, the GST, agriculture, VTA Rail, there was absolutely no mention of VIA Rail cuts during the election campaign, and the devastating removal of jobs for many people. Other countries are now getting into rail transportation. Also, the government did not mention one thing on the environment. There was no environmental study on the elimination of rail transportation compared to the infrastructure of trucks and automobiles. There was one page which they called an environmental statement, which it was not.
Another thing is agriculture. In my riding during the campaign the Minister of Agriculture stated that we had a $3 million grant to clean up the Sydenham River basin. For over 13 months I have been fighting to find out what happened to the $3 million.


David Walker: They stole it.
February 20, 1990


Rex Crawford: Well, they have stolen many things.
The plans they said they had, the cuts that were never mentioned are things I find hard to believe. But I do thank the hon. member for the question. I would like to compose myself as I became a little excited over the many things this government has done wrong, the promises broken.


Guy H. Arseneault: I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Kent on his fine speech. He really set out some of the problems and the impacts that cutting back this program will cause not only in Atlantic Canada but in central Canada.
As the hon. member probably knows, the provinces in Atlantic Canada are now suffering severely. There is a fisheries crisis not only in the offshore but inshore as well. There is high unemployment, we have cut-backs in ACOA, we have a problem with VIA Rail, where the Conservative government has shown no heart and has cut back. We had a recent announcement by the minister regarding cut-backs in summer training programs for university students. Again, there is the threat of cuts in transfer payments. I would like to ask the hon. member to confirm that this program will have a very negative impact, not only on the Atlantic provinces but on central Canada as well.


Rex Crawford: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. For the farmers of my area of southwestern Ontario, which I have referred to as central Canada, this will be devastating. We like to think of our area, and especially my own riding, as the garden valley of Canada. It has the richest land, and great weather, for Canada.
Almost every day in my area, as in the eastern provinces, farmers are going bankrupt because they cannot compete with programs such as this. Yesterday, the market for com was $2.66 a bushel and it costs $2.82 a bushel to grow. How can they survive? And then these programs are cancelled. Interest is now being charged on the advance payment for crops program. If a farmer cannot afford to store his crop, he cannot afford to pay interest. If he is going to pay interest, the bank wants the money. How can he afford to put up storage bins? I have neighbours who are in the business of building storage bins. They are losing this run-off from the one point of cutting back and amending the act to say we have to pay
Government Orders
interest on the loans. It mushrooms for people. They are losing their living through their agricultural losses.
I do not believe there will be any agricultural grants left after the budget today. The farmers now pay gasoline taxes. We are competing under the free trade. I have not even got into the free trade issue. My riding is on the border and I know what free trade is doing to us in our area. The city of Chatham has over 12 per cent unemployment so we are starting to equal the Atlantic provinces. We are supposed to be one of the richest areas of Ontario and yet we have over 12 per cent unemployment.
We are so close to the border the companies that are owned-and they are 90 per cent owned by American firms-are taking their companies back, laying employees off here and upping production in the States. All this around the agriculture industry and the grants that the government has dropped.


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, I would like to place on the record a few brief remarks concerning Bill C-26 and the action taken under that bill to remove the so-called at and east subsidy. Being a representative of the port of Halifax I think it is particularly fitting that I add my comments because it is the port of Halifax and the farmers in the agricultural industry of Nova Scotia that are primarily affected by the divisions of this bill.
Of course, there is a profound effect in the port of Saint John and other areas of Atlantic Canada, but I think the very specific effect of this bill falls within the port of Halifax and the agricultural industry. It is important that the person representing some of those interests express a view in the House of Commons.
Bill C-26 is reality. We on the government side are facing the realities of our economy in Atlantic Canada. I am sure even the member for Kent recognizes that when subsidies are utilized, there is a distortion that takes place that can have an undesirable effect. That is exactly what has happened over the past 25 years and more with respect to the at and east subsidies.
The at and east subsidy was initially conceived as a method of allowing east cost ports within Canada to compete with ports on the east coast of the United States. The purpose of the subsidy was to balance the cost of grain and flour shipments eastward primarily for the export markets. Nobody would deny that it was an

February 20, 1990
Government Orders
important measure at the time and it had a desirable effect. However, it does not meet the realities of the economy or the transportation system as we approach the decade of the 1990s and the 21st century. If we are simply going to continue these subsidies without taking steps to remedy the economic difficulties that they are designed to offset, then we are not going to make any progress either in terms of the Atlantic economy, the port of Halifax, the agricultural industry, or any other aspect of our national or regional life.
In very specific terms, the at and east subsidy on an annual basis poured $40 million into the coffers of the railways of Canada. The expenditure of funds was directed at the railways of Canada, even though the intention was to assist east coast ports at the time the subsidization was established. Because of the operation of the subsidy over a long period of time, there was substantial benefits to the agricultural industry particularly in the area of feed grains and related matters.
There was also a substantial benefit to the flour milling industry. In fact, a flour mill, Dover Flour Mill, was established on the east coast and is still there. We can see how subsidization not only accomplishes the goal that perhaps was intended in the original inception of the subsidy, but it creates other situations which have to be addressed. In particular the at and east was the basis for assistance to the agricultural industry, particularly in Nova Scotia, because it allowed feed to be delivered at a lower cost to those involved in the raising of livestock. It benefited the port of Halifax and supported the grain elevator there as well as the grain elevator in the port of Saint John.
As it is often said, that was then and this is now. We find now that the public funds that come from the taxpayers of Canada are being directed to the wrong source. The value of the at and east subsidization in the 1990s and beyond is the assistance that it provides for the agricultural industry, for the livestock sector of the agricultural industry as well as the port of Halifax and other ports, and the flour mills that have been established because of the existence of the source of supply.
If members opposite were being realistic and honest about this situation they would allow Bill C-26 to pass, end the at and east subsidy, and then lobby, argue and
present a case for direct assistance to the farmers who were affected and have been receiving an indirect benefit, assistance to the port of Halifax, to the operators of the grain elevator in the port of Halifax and in the port of Saint John, and to other segments of the industry that might be adversely affected by the withdrawal of the at and east subsidization. I do not think any member of this House of Commons would stand up and demand the continuation of subsidization to the railways of Canada simply because the railways carry flour and grains eastward from the place of production.
Let me focus on that point because we just had a member from Ontario get up in the House of Commons and argue in support of the at and east and against the passage of Bill C-26. If that member wanted to help farmers in Nova Scotia and in the Atlantic area, he would be arguing in favour of the withdrawal of the countervail on com. Then farmers on the east coast could get their feed cheaper because they would not have to honour the existing countervail which is in place to protect Ontario producers.
The member could also argue in favour of special permission to import into Canada other feed grains, oats and wheat, for use in the agricultural industry. There are all kinds of solutions beyond the at and east, but members never mention those solutions. They will not deal with the problem, and that is very much the problem with opposition members when a proposition is presented to the House of Commons. They simply argue against the proposition. They try to defeat it. They do not try to resolve the problem.
I hope the people of Canada, particularly the people in Nova Scotia and Halifax, will realize that the withdrawal of the at and east subsidy is the first step to trying to address the problems that are now allowed to fester because of the existence of at and east. In other words, redirect government funding to the proper source. As I said and I repeat, that source is not the railways of Canada. That source is the port facilities, the agricultural industry, the milling industry and particularly the milling of flour which is indirectly supported at the present time by the at and east.
There is no question that if the problems in the agricultural industry and in the port facility are not addressed there would be a loss of employment. But if
February 20, 1990

action is taken to provide assistance in other ways, other than through an uncontrolled subsidy like the at and east, those kinds of problems can be resolved. In fact, the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission has proposed a number of measures that could be taken to offset any harm caused by the at and east. Members opposite should direct their minds to those proposals as I am sure members on this side of the House will do.
The vital point is that even the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission recognizes that a first step is the abolition of the at and east. I think it is unfortunate from the point of view of those involved in the port facility and those involved in the agricultural industry that we do not have side by side with Bill C-26 a proposal to address some of the items that have been brought forward by the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Committee and others. Surely that will come in time.
As long as the at and east subsidization is in place, nothing is going to change. Persons who raise livestock in Nova Scotia and other Atlantic provinces will not know what the future holds because nobody has supported the at and east subsidization as the proper resolution of the problem.
There are at the present time, and I want to be quite frank about this, real dangers to the continued existence of the grain elevator in the port of Halifax and the port of Saint John. I am sure all of us on the government side will call upon the ministries to recognize that problem and to take appropriate action. I think everybody on the government side recognizes the problem faced by farmers in Nova Scotia with respect to the raising of livestock and the fact that they are not in a competitive position.
I want to remind the House of what took place prior to the April 1989 budget. At that time there was considerable concern among members of the agricultural community that feed freight assistance would be eliminated. Members of the agriculture industry made it clear that they wanted the feed freight assistance to continue. As a result of their representations the feed freight assistance program was continued. But everybody, including government and industry people and everybody else concerned with the problem also recognize that the solution to the feed problem is self-sufficiency. If the industry could become self-sufficient with respect to feed grains the problem would be removed.
Government Orders
What the government has put in place is a program to foster self-sufficiency in feed grain for the east coast livestock industry. I think everybody recognizes that the solutions lie in that direction. In a similar vein, the solution to problems for mills on the east coast, particularly the existing mills and the grain elevator that is associated with the transportation of grain and grain products and flour, lies in other programs and other forms of assistance.
Why members would continue to block passage of the bill and seek ways to prevent its passage is beyond my comprehension. I do not see anybody in industry or any other place telling us to keep the at and east in place. If the motion before the House of Commons to give Bill C-26 a six-month hoist were passed, the at and east would continue and nothing would be resolved.
I want to stress again the fact that Bill C-26 is about reality. It is about the realities of the agriculture industry, the realities of the port industry and the realities of the milling industry.


Rodney Edward Laporte: What is your alternative?


Howard Edward Crosby: If you are not willing, as a member of the House or Commons, to face reality, then you are not going to help the people of Canada resolve any problems. We have seen that time and time again in this House of Commons.
The New Democratic Party and every one of its members will not face reality. They want to create a panacea. They want to pretend that there are simple solutions to complicated problems. They want to nationalize poverty and make it an asset available to them because they know that only poor people will support their policy. If they were to create wealth across this country, they would lose their support. Their support lies in the welfare programs. Their support lies in the government assistance that they want to give to people. That is the way they attract their support.
I do not think everybody in this House of Commons realizes that that is not the way the Progressive Conservative government attracts support. We attract support by recognizing the economic realities of a nation by moving to resolve the problems that exist and in that way create a future.

February 20, 1990
Government Orders
We are not ashamed to create wealth. We are not ashamed to give the poor people of Canada an opportunity to better their position. We do not want to keep them in their state simply so they will provide a voting base for our party.
The future of this country lies in creating wealth. The first step in creating wealth is to recognize the economic problems that exist. Bill C-26 recognizes the problem that exists. It is a first step to remedying it. I hope every member of the House will recognize that and not hide behind some alleged solution which they know does not exist that will allow the problem to continue and that will have a "crass appeal to their own electorate".


Mr. Hovdebo:: Madam Speaker, for the party that has created a lot of poverty and which is in the process of institutionalizing it, it is good to hear the hon. member talk about wealth.
Concerning the record of consultation of this particular government, and in particular the consultation on this particular issue, the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission put before the government an alternative approach which it thought would ease the situation. It said: "This is what we can do with at and east when the time comes". It has put before the government other alternatives in terms of what needs to happen to keep them in a survival mode if the government does pass this bill.
The impact of the proposal to terminate the at and east rates would be against the farming community, both in the Atlantic provinces and elsewhere. What is being talked about here is the importation of barley, wheat and oats from France and other European countries that can supply the east coast of Canada cheaper than domestic suppliers.
These are the kinds of solutions that are going to have to be put in place if alternatives to the at and east are not established. We in the west and in central Canada cannot supply from central Canada and from the west those products which are needed in the east.
The alternatives mean an impact on the west and central Canada. It is too bad that the reason for this particular change of direction by the government is based on ideology alone because when the at and east was established originally it was not entirely to keep the
grain going to Buffalo and New York. It was intended to keep the facilities along the Atlantic coast operating.
In fact Jack Pickersgill said that it was to ensure that we would have rates which would provide some incentive to the shippers to use the facilities of the Atlantic ports.
Does the hon. member not recognize that even his own port is going to be affected negatively by this bill and that Saint John is going to be affected more so?


Howard Edward Crosby: This is a great example of House of Commons debate. If the debate goes on long enough, the truth emerges.
The members on the other side who are standing to oppose Bill C-26 are not trying to help Atlantic Canada. They are not trying to help the port of Halifax or the agricultural industry in Nova Scotia. They are trying to help their own self-interests. They are trying to help western farmers. They are trying to help com producers in Ontario. That is perfectly legitimate, but stand up and say that. Do not pretend you are helping the port of Halifax if you are from Saskatchewan. Do not pretend you are trying to help the agricultural industry in Nova Scotia if you come from the com production belt of Ontario. Tell the truth. That is all anybody wants. Just tell the truth.
Let me deal with the point about consultation. It is strange the member would suggest there was no consultation when I have here before me a paper from the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission detailing their lobbying on the Atlantic region freight assistance program. They say it is safe. They say they have consulted with the government and the feed freight program is safe. They talk about the at and east. They mention that it is terminated and that it will produce some economic difficulties.
How about this for consultation? They say right in their paper that their concerns will be followed by an early meeting under the auspices of Transport Canada at the regional level to evaluate the impacts and seek out possible means of minimizing the negative impacts on the Atlantic region. That is what is all about. Get rid of the at and east and then remove the damaging impacts, if any, by other programs. That is simple enough.


David Walker: Madam Speaker, the convoluted speech we heard was only matched by the convoluted answer to the preceding question. Let us see if we can bring some
February 20, 1990

logic to bear, though it might catch the member off guard at this time of day.
I do not mind people flacking for a minister, but when they read from a press release, then all logic is lost. It is very interesting that the NDP and the Liberals have to defend the maritimes. One reason we are defending the maritimes is that the members on that side of the House who were elected from that area have walked out on them. This is a perfect example. The government has taken away another benefit from that area, as it has taken away so many benefits in the last five years.
The hon. member stands up and says: "If it is good enough for the Prime Minister, it is good enough for me and it is good enough for my people. I do not care about all the downsides."
I would like the hon. member to describe in a sentence or two exactly what he believes is the way the federal government is helping these people in the maritimes. All we see from this side of the House is the removal of funds from regional economic development, the loss of transportation subsidies and all the infrastructure help that used to be given under previous governments. There is nothing but taking away.
Just before we hear the budget in 10 or 12 minutes, we have seen that back-bencher give a perfect rendition of what everybody on that side is going to have to go through for the next couple of weeks. Perhaps he could just give us a little insight as to what he thinks this government is actually doing for the maritimes.


Howard Edward Crosby: Apparently the member thought my presentation was convoluted. I do not have a blackboard, but let me tiy to make it as simple as I can. Write $40 million. It is hard for a member of the Liberal party to understand dollars and cents, but just take that $40 million and give it to the railways of Canada. Then figure out what the railways of Canada are going to do for Atlantic Canada with the $40 million. The answer will come back very quickly; nothing. The facilities have been in place for a hundred years. They do not spend a nickel or a dime of that subsidization on facilities.
We want to take the $40 million and apply it in some other way, or some part of it. I do not mind if some of it goes to reducing the deficit, because that is what is
Government Orders
creating the economic problem in the first place. I do not expect members of the opposition to understand that.
Let me give a concrete example in case the member did not get that first exercise. The Atlantic Farmers' Council say there are one million tonnes of feed grain per year utilized by livestock raisers in Atlantic Canada. Now, 500,000 tonnes is for local consumption. Approximately $20 a tonne is saved by farmers because of the at and east. We only need to subsidize the purchase of the feed grains by that amount and we will have satisfied the farmers in their difficulty. I hope that is understood.
We do not even need to do that. If we do not protect Ontario com growers, we can remove the countervail. If we do not protect other segments of the industry in other parts of Canada, we can allow for imports. But the member from Saskatchewan has already said no to imports. Do not import feed grains into Atlantic Canada, make them pay the heavy price they have to pay for getting western grains. That is why he wants the at and east subsidy, because he wants to sell grain. I do not blame him for that. But do not pretend you are trying to help Atlantic Canada.


Rex Crawford: Madam Speaker, I have a question for clarification. I believe I heard the hon. member from Halifax state that they are trying to help the eastern farmer by being more efficient. I will be quite honest with the hon. member. If he helps the eastern farmer, he will help farmers in central Canada because we are both going under. I want him to clarify his statement that there is a plan to help the farmer become more efficient. Right now our inputs are more than we get for our crops. If the member can explain it to me, maybe I can support the bill. I doubt it but you explain it to me.


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, apparently the member is not aware of the assistance now provided to the livestock industry in Atlantic Canada through the Feed Freight Assistance Program, which also involves subsidization. In that case, however, the government subsidization is between the persons who receive the subsidization, the industry people, and the government.
We just do not funnel funds out according to some formula introduced by the Liberal government 30 years

February 20, 1990
Government Orders
ago, which we are supposed to continue just because Mr. Pickersgill or somebody put their name to it.
Times and circumstances change. The subsidization is not accomplishing the desired effect. It is not realistic, as I said at the outset. I can do no better than to repeat it. Bill C-26 is about reality. If the hon. member does do not want to face reality then I can understand why he will not support Bill C-26.


George Saunders Rideout: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to listen to the comments from the members opposite about the benefits of Bill C-26 for Atlantic Canada.
When we analyse what this government has done over the last few months, we have to wonder what will happen to us in Atlantic Canada.
Bill C-26 is a clear example of how this government treats Atlantic Canada. I listened to the hon. member for Halifax West tell us that we should give up on this particular subsidy and this particular grain handling bill. In the meantime we can wait to see what happens and maybe argue for something else.
Atlantic Canadians are fed up with giving up. We have given up our VIA Rail system. We have given up almost every type of support mechanism that has been available to Atlantic Canadians over the years. The hon. member for Halifax West tells us to continue to give up. Quite frankly, Atlantic Canadians are fed up with giving up.
It is interesting to listen to government members and their code words. They talk about the bottom line, market forces and subsidies. In the final analysis, we see they are caught in the dilemma of the free trade agreement. They have to abandon the unemployment insurance program that involved government participation because of the free trade agreement.
Now, Bill C-26 forces the government to give up support to the grain handlers in Atlantic Canada, to the railway industry and to all the other support industries because in part the free trade agreement was poorly negotiated and left Atlantic Canadians in the lurch.
As the government proceeds step by step with its agenda, we realize that it is tearing apart the total infrastructure that has functioned well in Atlantic Canada. Consider, for example, the lack of support for the Trans-Canada Highway in New Brunswick, and the
dismantling of all of VIA Rail except for the mainline. With the removal of this at and east subsidy, we will see more CN and CP lines abandoned.
The government states that it is doing this for Atlantic Canada, and is behind us 100 per cent. It is all nonsense, it is not behind anyone.
The purpose of the program was to allow the Atlantic Canadian ports an opportunity to survive and compete against the Americans and also the Upper Canadians in Montreal. The government wants to take that advantage away. It is telling Atlantic Canadians to sink or swim on their own. What it will do is is cut off all the life supports now, and then ask the goverment to come back and try to negotiate after they lost everything.
That is totally unacceptable to us in Atlantic Canada. The problem is that when you only deal with bottom lines and with numbers, statistics and data like that, you forget that there are people involved. There are people who have jobs. There are people who have families and children going to university. Where are they left when this government is through taking away every type of support mechanism that is available?
Members opposite often tell us solutions. The Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission offered solutions. It put a proposal on the table a year ago, and the government simply ignored it and brought in Bill C-26. It did not listen to the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission. It did not listen to anybody. It just went ahead and did what it felt was right, which turns out, as usual, to be wrong.
It is no wonder, when you look at the polls that were released today that in Atlantic Canada the government is down to about 20 per cent in popularity, with the Liberal party at 67 per cent. It is because it has destroyed the confidence of Atlantic Canadians in their government and what it is doing. While the government talks about regional disparity and trying to hold this country together, at the same time it dismantles everything which Atlantic Canadians hold dear in all of their structures.
The government has botched its handling of the fishing industry. It has botched the railway industry. Now it has botched its handling of this issue.
This is a critical aspect of development in Atlantic Canada. The program has been in existence since the
February 20, 1990

1960s. It has been beneficial to Atlantic Canada. I believe that as this government adopts a very callous attitude, the alienation of Atlantic Canadians, of the people in the north and in the west toward the central government will have nothing but an adverse effect on Confederation and on how we as a country see ourselves.
I know that my time is waning because we are going to hear of more cuts, more hardship, more havoc on all the citizens of Canada-not just Atlantic Canada-coming up in about a minute and a half. I will defer any further comments. I want to hear what the Conservative government is going to do for us. It has done so much to us so far that I cannot imagine that there can be anything left that it can take away from Atlantic Canada.
It is a continuing drama of cut-backs on the basis of bottom line. The government is suffering from that rare disease called "deficititis". It plays the smoke and mirrors game of adding on here and changing the funding there. The net effect is that Atlantic Canadians lose. They have lost before, and they are losing now with this bill.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to order made Monday, February 19, 1990, the debate is now adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being 4.30 p.m, pursuant to order made Monday, February 19, 1990, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Ways and Means Motion No. 13.


THE BUDGET
Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance) moved:: That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the
government.
He said: Since 1984, this government has been following a consistent and comprehensive plan to ensure that Canadians can benefit from a rising standard of living and a quality of life second to none in the world.
The Budget
As a vital part of that plan, we have been striving to gain greater control over our nation's finances.
We have attached a very high priority to this objective. Because as we achieve it, we will gain greater flexibility and independence of action to meet the priorities of this government and of Canadians.
Last year I set out a five-year deficit reduction plan to achieve this objective. It was, and is, the right course to follow.
The deficit for this year is on track at $30.5 billion. But our future progress is endangered by deeply entrenched inflationary pressures.
Today I am asking Canadians to join in a broadly based program to reinforce our efforts to control government spending. This program will keep us on a track that will allow us to achieve the goals that I set out in my last budget: We will reduce the deficit to $28.5 billion this next fiscal year; We will cut it in half to $14 billion in three more years; and, We will reduce it further to $10 billion in the year after that.
This will mean that within five years the government will begin to buy back its bonds and Treasury bills. The country will be on a clear path of substantially reducing the burden of debt.
Last year I said that for every dollar the government collects, the interest on our debt was 35 cents and rising. That is money we can not use now to get taxes down or to address priorities such as environmental protection, research and development and skills training. We must pay those interest costs. In this budget I will show how, over the next five years, we can reduce that 35 cents to 26 cents-and keep it going down.
[Translation\
Reducing the share of revenues we pay out in interest will increase our capacity to meet the aspirations of Canadians.
That is one important reason for reducing our deficit. There are other important reasons.
Every additional dollar of deficit we incur today means an increased burden of debt for future generations. We have a responsibility to our children and grandchildren. To build for them, not to borrow from them.

February 20, 1990
The Budget

Reducing the federal deficit will help ease inflationary pressures. That will help reduce interest rates.
Reducing the federal deficit will reduce Canada's reliance on foreign lenders. It will strengthen our sovereignty as a nation.
These are all powerful reasons for holding to the plan we started in 1984.
Much progress has been made since then. We have significantly reduced the burden of government. The growth of spending on all government programs and services has been well below the growth of the economy and even below the rate of inflation.
We have reduced the size of the public service by 12,000. The public service today is the same size as in 1973, despite the fact that Canada's population has increased by about one-fifth. Overall, spending on government operations is less now than it was in 1984.
When we first came to office, the federal government was spending $16 billion more on programs-everything except our interest costs-than it collected in revenues. Today our program spending is $9 billion less than revenues. We have turned an operating deficit into an operating surplus-a turnaround of $25 billion in just five years. And 70 per cent of this progress results from expenditure restraint. To achieve that progress, we have reduced program spending as a share of the economy to the lowest level in almost 20 years.
Canadians know that this progress has been hard-earned. They have felt the impact of the tough but necessary decisions to protect and strengthen Canada's future. While our actions have meant difficult adjustments for many Canadians, the economic results have been good. The economy has expanded for seven consecutive years. Employment has grown strongly. After-tax incomes have risen. Economic opportunities have been increased. Poverty has been reduced by the best kind of social policy-more jobs.

The actions in this budget will ensure that we make continued progress in the years ahead by facing squarely the twin problems of high deficits and high inflation.
I am proposing a two-year expenditure control program that will affect all areas of government spending with the exception of income support programs for seniors, families and veterans, unemployment insurance, as well as the equalization program and Canada Assistance Plan payments to lower-income provinces.

A number of programs will be limited to 5-per-cent annual growth for the next two years. Others will be frozen at their current levels. Some will be cut or eliminated. Government operations will be tightened further.
There will be no new taxes in this budget.
The spending control program, together with the restraint measures announced in December, will save $3 billion in the first year and close to $4 billion in the following year. The savings will total well over $19 billion over the next five years. Our operating surplus will grow from $9 billion today to $31 billion in 1994-95.
Implementing the expenditure control program this year will require the patience and understanding of Canadians.
In my budget last year, I spoke of the importance of easing the inflationary pressures that have been building in most parts of the country. Only by easing demand and cooling out these pressures can we re-establish a solid track of sustainable non-inflationary growth.
The economy is in a period of slower growth. This is not surprising. Nor should we try to avoid it.
This will not be an easy year. But as we move through it, let us not forget what we learned together in the early 1980s when inflation got out of control. Let us not relive the sense of despair, the sinking confidence and the personal hardship that resulted from the 20-per-cent-plus interest rates brought on by soaring inflation.
Let us instead remind ourselves of why we must solve our deficit and inflation problems now. To do so will allow us to build a secure and rewarding future on a solid foundation: a responsive government with the financial room to manoeuvre to maintain valued services and tackle new challenges; a dynamic economy that provides rising living standards and growing opportunities to build full, satisfying lives; a confident, economically sovereign
February 20, 1990

The Budget
country that is competitive abroad and in control of its destiny at home.
This is the future we have been building since 1984.
The way to achieve it is to follow a clear plan of responsible fiscal and economic policies to reduce inflation and create a better climate for lower interest rates; policies that increase our ability as a nation to earn our way in the world and to pay our way at home.
This government will continue to do, not what is easy or popular for itself, but what is right for the country.


BUILDING THE FOUNDATION FOR A BETTER FUTURE
[Stage Direction]
To ensure a strong economic foundation for the future, we are moving forward with the broad plan that we set out in November 1984.
The plan has two main thrusts: to put the government's financial house in order; and to foster a dynamic, innovative and competitive private sector.
Our actions have challenged Canadians and encouraged them to change their ways of doing things.
But let's be clear about the real source of pressure for change. It is not the government. It is the rapidly evolving and increasingly competitive world in which we must earn our way.
The pace of international economic change has been accelerating during the past decade as more and more of our trading partners have implemented major economic reforms. The adjustments that we and others have been making have been spread over many years. By contrast, the adjustments faced now by those in Eastern Europe are daunting in their speed and scope.
The powerful combination of political and economic freedom will increasingly unleash the creative energy of individual initiative, and bring more and more countries into the competitive mainstream of the world economy. We, as individuals and as a country, must be ready to deal with this and take advantage of the opportunities it presents.
[Translation)

[Stage Direction]
In this changing world, Canada needs a dynamic, flexible economy that responds quickly and effectively to new challenges and opportunities; a more open and market-oriented economy that brings out the best of our competitive abilities.
Toward this goal, our economic plan has proceeded with many initiatives designed to strengthen the basic structure of the economy and provide a better framework to allow our economy and Canadians to adjust to change. These structural reforms will increase our competitiveness and expand our potential for growth and job creation. They encourage private initiative, remove obstacles to economic growth, secure access to markets, increase investment and improve efficiency. They contribute to a more productive and prosperous Canada.
The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement is opening up new opportunities in the large American market. This initiative alone will lead to an ongoing 3.5 per cent increase in our economic output. These gains will be shared by all regions.
[English)
Scrapping the National Energy Program and deregulating the energy and transportation sectors have reduced government interference in these key parts of our economy.
The reform of the income tax system lowered tax rates and eliminated tax breaks and loopholes. It has increased economic output by increasing the incentive to work, save and invest.
The new Labour Market Development Strategy will upgrade the skills and increase the flexibility of the work force. Better training means better jobs for Canadian workers. It helps them adapt to new technology and change.

[Stage Direction]
Our program of privatization and improved management of Crown corporations is contributing both to greater economic efficiency and deficit reduction. Since 1984, the government's holdings in 18 corporations have been sold or reduced. Eight others have been dissolved. The number of Crown corporation employees has been
[Stage Direction]
February 20, 1990
The Budget
reduced by 75,000 partly through privatization and partly through rationalization and the elimination of waste and inefficiency.
The financial health of many Crown corporations has substantially improved. Canada Post has turned a $400 million deficit into a profit and is continuing to improve its service. Canadian National has reduced its long-term debt from $3.5 billion in 1986 to less than $2 billion in 1989. To ensure a better return on the public's investment and to contribute to deficit reduction, profitable Crown corporations will return more to the government as shareholder in the form of dividends.
We will continue to privatize Crown corporations and sell investments where government ownership is no longer needed to meet public policy objectives.
In 1984, Petro-Canada was mandated to operate as a commercial corporation in a competitive private sector environment. Further expansion of Petro-Canada depends on having access to the full range of financing opportunities available to private sector corporations.
Following consultations with senior management of the corporation, the government has decided that the time has come to allow direct public ownership of Petro-Canada. The Minister of State for Privatization will provide further details in the near future and legislation will be introduced later this year. The government is confident that a privately owned, Canadian-controlled Petro-Canada will play a strong and growing role in Canada's energy sector.
We intend to sell the government's shares in Telesat Canada, which has now achieved commercial success as a satellite communications carrier. This sale will help encourage even greater innovation in a key high-technology sector of the Canadian economy.
We are also winding up a number of Crown corporations and other agencies whose functions can be handled effectively by other organizations.

[Stage Direction]
The replacement of the existing manufacturers sales tax with the Goods and Services Tax is a key part of our economic plan. It will strengthen economic competitiveness, contribute to deficit reduction and lead to a fairer sales tax system.
Replacing a hidden tax with a tax which will be visible and comprehensive is difficult. It isn't popular, but it is necessary.
The existing tax destroys jobs. It makes our exports less competitive and favours imports over Canadian-made products. It costs Canada $9 billion in lost annual output. The GST will unlock that potential for new growth and jobs. The benefits will be felt in every region of Canada.
The existing federal sales tax is subject to significant tax avoidance. By replacing this unreliable tax, the GST will put our deficit reduction plan on a stronger foundation.
[Stage Direction]
Through the GST refundable credit, the fairness of the tax system will be improved. Families with incomes up to $30,000 will be better off than under the existing system. Three-quarters of all families headed by seniors and single parents will have more after-tax income under the GST.
In response to concerns expressed by the small business community, the government is continuing to work with the provinces to seek ways of minimizing the compliance burden of the tax.

[Stage Direction]
Taken together, all of these reforms will significantly increase the capacity of the Canadian economy to produce goods and services. They raise our potential sustainable growth from an average of 2 3/4 per cent annually to more than 3 1/4 per cent. Achieving that growth will mean more jobs and a higher standard of living for Canadians. Over a five-year period, it will lead to a gain of about $2,500 for a household of four.
The challenge we face is to realize this higher potential for growth so that we can achieve those benefits. The record shows that Canadians have responded well to the challenge of change and adjustment since 1984. We have an outstanding record of growth and job creation. Almost 1.6 million more Canadians have a job today than in 1984. Average incomes have steadily increased, not just in total dollars but in real, after-tax income. This means there are now 750,000 fewer Canadians exposed to poverty.
February 20, 1990

[Stage Direction]
To achieve our potential for greater economic growth and job creation, we must build on the hard-earned fiscal progress we have made.
Let me explain clearly the deeply rooted nature of the problem we are facing, and why it can be solved only with patient, determined, year-by-year effort.
In a real sense, we have had to fight not one deficit, but two.
In 1984, the federal government was living far beyond its means. It had to borrow $16 billion just to cover the difference between spending on programs and services and the revenues it collected. That was the first deficit- the operating deficit.
At the same time, a $200 billion mountain of debt was generating more than $22 billion in annual interest charges. Every penny of this interest was paid by additional borrowing. This was the second deficit.
Before we could even begin to deal with this second problem, we had to eliminate the operating deficit that was caused by too much program spending and eroding revenues.

[Stage Direction]
As part of a measured, long-term plan to restore a better fiscal balance, we immediately launched a broad and sustained effort to reduce expenditures.
The first priority was spending on government operations-the cost of running the government. In 1984, this cost $17.4 billion. We have cut this to $16.8 billion in spite of a larger workload.
In December, the President of the Treasury Board announced further steps to eliminate waste, improve efficiency and save $1.4 billion over the next three years. We have imposed a freeze on federal government construction in Ottawa and travel restrictions on Members of Parliament and public servants. We are closing some parliamentary restaurants, selling two government jets and amalgamating or closing some government agencies.
Waste is being eliminated. Productivity has been improved; it will be further improved by measures in this budget. We will continue to seek out ways to eliminate waste and inefficiency in the months and years ahead.
The Budget
We also eliminated outdated programs and restructured or restrained others. We eliminated energy subsidies, closed heavy water plants, reduced the VIA subsidy and eliminated the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program. With tight discipline and good management, the program spending that amounted to 19.5 per cent of the economy in 1984 has been reduced to 16 per cent this year. That is equivalent to a $22 billion reduction in spending.
But the problem we faced in 1984 was not just too much spending. Federal government revenues had been declining as a share of national income since the mid-1970s. This happened for a number of reasons, including the growth in special tax breaks and the flaws in the federal sales tax. We eliminated those breaks, closed loopholes and increased revenues. Revenue, as a share of national income, is now back to the average level of the 1970s.
In 1987-88, we reached the first major milestone in the battle against the deficit when we turned the operating deficit into a surplus which now stands at $9 billion. This is major progress. It is a fundamental structural change in the balance of spending and revenues.

[Stage Direction]
Because we now have an operating surplus, the total deficit today is less than the borrowing required to pay the interest on the debt. The reason for the rapid increase in borrowing costs needs to be better understood.
Compound interest-the interest paid on interest-is a great friend when you have money in the bank. Money invested at a compound rate of 10 per cent doubles in about seven years. It quadruples in about 14 years and grows to almost eight times its original size in 21 years.
But the same thing happens in reverse when you have to keep borrowing to pay the interest on a debt. In the time it takes a newborn child to reach the age of 21, a $200 billion national debt at a compounded rate of 10 per cent would grow to almost $1.5 trillion, all on its own.
Despite the fact that we have cut the annual growth of the debt from 24 per cent to less than 10 per cent since 1984, the debt is still growing faster than the economy- faster than our ability to pay.
[Stage Direction]
February 20, 1990
The Budget
Our public debt has grown from $200 billion to $350 billion in five years. Fully $120 billion-more than 80 per cent-of this increase consists of the compounding interest on the original $200 billion. That shows dramatically how important it is to get off the treadmill of borrowing money to pay interest on the past debt. It also helps to explain why the deficit is still at $30 billion in spite of the reduction in spending and increased tax revenues over the past five years.
[Stage Direction]
This year alone, interest payments will cost us close to $40 billion-equal to $1,500 for each and every Canadian. That is ten times higher than 15 years ago.
A public debt growing faster than national income does more than feed on itself. It consumes more and more of the dollars we need to maintain existing programs, meet new priorities and keep taxes down. Ultimately, it consumes the hope and the opportunity that should be the legacy we pass on to our children. Instead, a runaway debt becomes our legacy.
The children of today and tomorrow do not have a vote in this matter. We do, and with it comes the responsibility to protect their future from a crippling burden of debt.
With the expenditure control actions in this budget, we will ensure that our operating surplus continues to grow. This is essential. But we also need to ease the burden of rapidly growing interest payments. And to do this effectively we must continue to deal firmly with the greatest single threat to our continued fiscal and economic progress: high inflation.

[Stage Direction]
After seven years of strong economic growth, the economy has exceeded its productive capacity. This has fuelled inflation. The current slowing of the economy is helping to ease the strain, but underlying inflationary pressures remain too high. We must lower inflation as quickly as possible. This is the only way to get interest rates down so that we can put the economy back on a sustainable path of expansion and make further progress on the deficit.
The prospects for lower inflation and interest rates depend crucially on keeping costs under control. If we try to take more out of the economy than it is capable of producing, our inflation problems will worsen and the economy will suffer. Responsible price and wage behaviour will speed the process of getting inflation down.
Federal government wage increases have been below the inflation rate and below the pace of wage increases in the private sector since 1984. The government is today reaffirming its commitment to wage restraint. I have asked my provincial colleagues to join me in that commitment.
This will be a testing year for the Canadian economy. The economic news will not be encouraging in the months ahead. Growth will be slow. Employment is expected to continue growing, but not as quickly as the labour force, and the unemployment rate will rise.
In these circumstances, we can expect to hear increasing demands for quick-fixes, particularly for sharp, sudden reductions in interest rates. The frustration that people feel about the persistence of high interest rates is understandable. I feel it too. But experience makes clear the futility and the danger of trying to solve economic and fiscal problems by dealing with the symptoms rather than the causes. Experience also supports the need for the kind of firm, inflation-fighting monetary policy that the Bank of Canada has been following.
I want to underline the point: High interest rates are the symptom, inflation is the cause. A firm monetary policy helps to ease the demand that is straining the capacity of the economy and creating inflationary pressure. It is dealing with the cause of the problem. Premature easing of credit would lead to an increase in borrowing and demand pressures. This would make the inflationary problem worse, and lead to even higher interest rates in future.
The measures in this budget will work with monetary policy to ease inflationary pressures. They will help to harness the benefits of lower inflation, lower interest rates and lower deficits. They will reinforce each other and lead to a smooth return to strong, sustained growth and job creation. They will help ensure that the greater economic output made possible by our structural reforms will in fact be achieved.
February 20, 1990

[Stage Direction]
The expenditure control measures in this budget are tough. They reflect the fact that after several years of restraint, there are no painless ways to cut spending. The notion that spending can be substantially reduced without having a real impact outside of government simply does not fit with the reality of how government spends the taxpayers' dollars.

[Stage Direction]
Our two-year expenditure control plan will have a major impact on program spending. All areas of program spending were reviewed and a wide range of programs is affected. In designing the measures, we were sensitive to the financial circumstances of individual Canadians as well as governments.
We have exempted major transfers to persons. These include elderly benefits, family allowances, veterans' pensions and allowances and unemployment insurance benefits. We have also exempted the equalization program and Canada Assistance Plan transfers to those provinces receiving equalization.
We have capped the growth of a number of programs at 5 per cent per year for the next two years. These include Canada Assistance Plan payments to the fiscally stronger provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta; and certain expenditures for science and technology, and Indian and Inuit programs. In the 1989 budget, defence and foreign aid expenditures were substantially reduced. In view of the tight fiscal situation, their growth will also be limited to 5 per cent from this lower expenditure base.
We have held a number of programs at their 1989-90 levels for the next two years. Total per capita cash and tax transfers to the provinces under Established Programs Financing will be held constant. These transfers will continue to grow with provincial populations.
We have reduced or eliminated a number of programs. In light of the economics of the project and the present fiscal environment, the government will not proceed with the offer of assistance for the construction of the OSLO oil sands project. The Canadian Exploration Incentives Program is cancelled effective midnight, February 19. The government will not proceed with the Polar 8 icebreaker project, due to significant increases in
The Budget
the estimated costs, delays which have contributed to these increases, and changes in the international environment.
We are taking a more businesslike approach to assistance to business. With limited exceptions, grants will be eliminated and financial assistance will be repayable on more rigorous terms. This will place the emphasis more clearly on investing in economic development rather than subsidizing the private sector.
[Stage Direction]
We are implementing a wide range of other measures to increase efficiency and reduce the cost of government operations. These include the privatization and Crown corporation measures that I dealt with earlier. The 2-per-cent annual limit on the growth of government operations and maintenance budgets, which has been in effect since 1986-87, will continue until 1994-95.
It is clear that with these measures the federal government has tightened its belt; we have restrained our own costs and we will continue to do so.
Total expenditures on programs other than those that are exempt or capped will decline over the next year to a level $800 million below that of the current year. Total federal program spending will grow by 3 per cent next year, well below the expected rate of inflation. Total entitlements for the major federal-provincial transfer programs are expected to grow at about the same rate as federal program spending next year. They will average about 2.3 per cent for Ontario, Alberta and B.C. and 4 per cent for the Atlantic provinces. The lower-income provinces will continue to receive proportionately more federal support than the higher-income provinces.
The deficit is a national problem. It demands a national solution. If we are to restore health to the nation's finances, provincial governments must do their part, just as they too will reap the rewards of lower inflation, lower interest rates and sustained economic growth.

[Stage Direction]
These measures, with the expenditure restraint of previous years, have made it possible to restore the deficit to a downward path without increasing taxes in this budget. With the Expenditure Control Plan in this budget, we are taking the actions now to ensure that the
[Stage Direction]
February 20, 1990
The Budget
government's fiscal position in the 1990s can support the priority programs Canadians value.
I have stated on many occasions that it would be irresponsible of our generation if we took the easy option of simply passing our deficit burden to our children. It would also be irresponsible to leave them a legacy of environmental neglect.
In Canada and abroad, we are witnessing a major change in peoples' attitudes and actions towards the environment. My colleague, the Minister of the Environment, is currently engaged in an extensive dialogue with Canadians on the steps we must take to address the difficult problems related to the pollution of our land, air and water and to deal with the protection of our ecological resources. Later this year, he will table before Parliament, "An Environmental Agenda for Canada: Implementing Sustainable Development."
[Stage Direction]
Canadians want action to protect our environment. The Agenda will be comprehensive and substantial and will demonstrate the government's commitment to action. It will be introduced in a fiscally responsible manner.

[Stage Direction]
The decisive actions in this budget bring us back to the fiscal track set out in the 1989 budget. We will cut the deficit to $28.5 billion in 1990-91. This deficit includes the impact of the one-time transitional cost of sales tax reform, including prepayment of the Goods and Services Tax Credit, the transitional grant to small business and the rebate of federal sales tax on inventories.
[Stage Direction]
The measures in this budget ensure that the deficit will be more than cut in half to $14 billion by 1993-94. By the following year:
The deficit will be further reduced to $10 billion.
The government will begin to pay down its bonds and Treasury bills.
Program spending will fall to 14.2 per cent of national income, the lowest level since the late 1960s.
The surplus of revenues over program expenditures- our operating surplus-will reach $31 billion.
[DOT] (D15)
The burden of debt will be reduced as the public debt shrinks relative to our national income.
As a direct result, the portion of every revenue dollar that today goes for debt interest will be reduced from 35 cents and rising, to 26 cents and falling.
In short, we will regain the flexibility needed to make real choices about the kind of country we will pass on to our children. And we will be able to make those choices in a climate of lower inflation, lower interest rates, durable economic growth and more jobs and opportunities in every part of Canada.
I am tabling the budget document including Notices of Ways and Means Motions. Details of the measures are included in the document.
Tomorrow I will introduce a bill seeking borrowing authority for the 1990-91 fiscal year.
I am asking that an order of the day be designated for consideration of those motions.

[Stage Direction]
A nation's true sovereignty is determined by the ability of its people to shape their own future.
In today's world, our sovereignty is not threatened by military force or aggression. Our freedom and opportunity to realize our dreams for ourselves and our children rest on our response to the challenge of a more competitive world in the throes of economic change.
[Stage Direction]
There can be no turning inward from this world. Canada is a major trading nation. We depend on international trade for one-third of our national income, millions of jobs and a substantial part of our ability to pay for important public services.
These benefits do not flow to Canada by right; we have to work hard for them. And when the economic world changes, we have to keep pace. To master our future in a changing world, we must expand our capacity to produce and sell Canadian goods and services at home and in markets around the world.

February 20, 1990
[Stage Direction]


Canada has the natural resources, the capital and the people with the ingenuity to prosper in a competitive world. The very fact of Canada's existence is a tribute to its adaptability. Our ancestors built this country against formidable odds. Canadians have stuck together through testing periods by reaffirming, time and again, their ability to build on the rich diversity of the nation with realism, determination, foresight and understanding. That was the spirit of Confederation; and it must be the spirit in which we face every challenge to the building of a better future for Canada and Canadians.
Our ability to keep our economic future in our own hands is being challenged by the closely linked problems of inflation and growing debt. The economic plan that I have described, and the firm actions we have taken as part of that plan, have brought us to a clear prospect of relief. But let it not be said that we lost the battle by abandoning it before it was won.
Indeed, if we maintain our resolve, the prospect of lower inflation is within sight and we will have the deficit under firm control. By persevering, we will attain greater control over our destiny, and greater ability to devote our resources to investments in a rising standard of living and a better quality of life for all Canadians: in research and development, education and skills training, and environmental, social and cultural programs.
We must not fail in our resolve. We must continue to face our problems squarely. We must grasp the opportunities that are at hand to build the Canada that we want for ourselves and for future generations.
Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech made by my colleague, the Minister of Finance. I will not take much of the House's time today, but I feel obliged to respond very briefly.
The hon. Minister of Finance stated in his speech today that there are powerful reasons for holding to the plan that the government started in 1984.1 believe that if ever there was a time for us to be conscious of the need
The Budget
to try to thwart the devastation that has been levelled on this country since 1984 it is after this speech.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, one of the most dangerous things in society is the big lie. We are going to read the numbers as time goes on. Always, always in a democracy you have to be careful of the big lie. Today, and I want to quote from the document-


Mr. Masse:: Sit down!


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, I see the hon. member responsible for Academy Awards is speaking out today, one who spent a lot of money that is being wasted and trying to be recouped by this budget.
The big lie is that there will be no new taxes in this budget. That is the lie that must be debunked-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: What a cheap trick-a cheap trick from a cheap man.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is getting very close to making it personal. I would ask him to keep in mind the rules. There is lots of room for disagreement without using words that are pejorative.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, the fact that Canadians have been told that there will be no new taxes is absolutely false because this budget will result in new taxes in British Columbia, in Alberta, in Saskatchewan, in Manitoba, in Ontario, in Quebec, in New Brunswick, in Nova Scotia, in P.E.I and in Newfoundland.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


M. Douglas Young: What this budget does to Canada is to say that debt is not debt unless it is owed by the Government of Canada. Debt is debt is debt is debt, whether it is provincial debt, municipal debt or federal debt. We will have a great deal to say about shifting the burden of debt in this country from one level of government to the other.

February 20,1990
The Budget
The challenge for Canadians will be to see that in fact this government's mismanagement of its own affairs has resulted in it having to shift the burden to Canadians across this country at the provincial and the municipal levels. That is the truth of the matter.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the debate be now adjourned.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to order made Monday, February 19, 1990, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 21, 1990