1990-04-02

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
39 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canada Communication Group - Publishing, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 2,1990
[Stage Direction]
Prayers

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, March 19, consideration of the motion Mr. Keyes:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider the advisability of reinstating funding for the Canadian
Centre for Occupational Health and Safety.
Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I rise today in this debate because I believe the government is doing the right thing in controlling our spending to reduce the national deficit. Contributions from all participating parties in the country are needed in this very important and vital exercise.
There is really nothing new about the principle of charging a nominal fee for exchanged information. This is a practice that has been carried on for ages within various government departments and agencies. It is not at all unusual for one department to charge for the services of another department.
Indeed, the proceedings in this House as produced in Hansard, the draft bills of legislation passed by the House, The Canada Gazette and other government publications are all produced at a cost and some of these costs are recovered by the users.
Therefore the products of the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety are, without question, valuable and essential to all of Canada and are definitely in demand by other nations. There is obviously a need
for these products, and that is why we are witnessing this debate in the House.
We agree that the information on occupational health and safety is of value to all the partners and to their constituents, whether they be individuals and unions concerned about occupational hazards, employers requiring information on toxic chemicals, governments and standard setting bodies developing or interpreting legislation, or other parties that might be interested in information on environmental pollutants, for example.
All this costs money to produce. It costs money to produce, package and distribute information products, and that is an unavoidable fact of life. In the past, however, these costs have been borne principally by only one of the partners in the arrangement. That creates a very stressful burden and an unfair situation. Therefore, if all the other partners are interested in continuing to provide these information services to Canadians, then they must devote some serious time and consideration to devising ways and means of paying for them and creating a more equitable situation.
This government is dedicated to building a constructive partnership among labour, business and governments. We believe that process will be ever more important as Canadians strive to address the challenges brought on by rapidly changing economic and social conditions that we are going through both at home and abroad.
At every opportunity we promote and facilitate active and vibrant partnerships among labour, business and governments as we develop public policy and pursue economic development. Together in this partnership we can and we must move forward in addressing the economic and social challenges that we share. However, shared responsibility and accountability must go hand in hand with that co-operative effort and that co-operative approach to decision making on national issues.
Since its creation in 1978 the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety has been provided with financial support to get itself established and to develop a variety of useful information services on matters of occupational health and safety. The federal government

April 2, 1990
Private Members' Business
is only one of the many partners that share in the control of and in the direction that the centre takes.
The other partners are also the principal beneficiaries of the products of the centre. The government, by this decision, is simply asking the other partners to accept a more equitable portion of the funding responsibility for the products that the centre has produced. They will be paying more only for the packaging and the distribution costs of the products they use. I do not think that is unreasonable; it is quite fair.
In the past the system has not been quite so fair. The federal government's jurisdiction in occupational health and safety embraces only one-tenth of the Canadian labour force or approximately one million workers, yet the federal government pays the majority of the centre's funding.
By contrast, the total membership of the Canadian Labour Congress is more than double the number of people in the federal jurisdiction. It seems to me that it is time that we found a more equitable cost sharing system.
The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety has provided workers, unions, employers, governments and individuals alike with the necessary tools to protect their immediate health and safety needs, but we must remember that in turn they have been provided with the economic tools necessary to gain efficiency in the Canadian market-place. We agree and we recognize this point. We also agree that it is important that individuals, unions and small businesses have ready access to inexpensive information as it pertains to health and safety.
The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety has been the focal point for tripartite co-operation, innovation and effective information sharing since its inception in 1978. We agree that it is an essential and unique component of a national information system developed by Canadians to protect the lives and the health of workers and to sustain a viable economy through partnership.


Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today on the motion placed before this House by my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton West.
Like my colleague I am veiy concerned about the decision of the federal government to withdraw funding for the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. The government should abandon this move and indicate as soon as possible that it will continue to provide the centre with federal funding.
There is no question as to the importance and value of the centre. It is a vital component in the protection of Canadian workers. The centre is renowned for the quality and magnitude of information and services it has on matters which relate to occupational health and safety in Canada and internationally.
The mandate of the centre involves the promotion of health and safety in the workplace and considers both the physical and mental health of workers. The centre has provided services which, as everyone will agree, have played an integral role in making the Canadian workplace safer and the economy more productive.
By having this excellent centre workers are that much closer to avoiding the far too many accidents which render them unable to work or worse. The occurrence of serious injury or death from job related accidents must be prevented. The centre has endeavoured, with recognizable success, to do just that since its inception in 1978.
Given the important role the centre has played, it is truly unconscionable that the federal government has decided to withdraw all of its funding to the centre by April 1991. The government provides the entire core budget funding for the centre. The total withdrawal of these funds will certainly have a negative impact upon the centre and its operations.
The money which has been given to the centre in the last 12 years by the federal government was money well spent. The centre has an annual budget usually between $8 million and $12 million. This works out to about $1 per worker per year. This is not too much if one considers that the lives and the working conditions of Canadians are at stake here.
The Minister of Labour stated in this House on April 28 of last year: "Work accidents entail direct and indirect costs of about $17.5 billion a year". The minister went on to say that this is, in his own words, "a very heavy burden
April 2, 1990

on this nation". I agree it is a very heavy burden, yet this minister and his government have decided to withdraw the main source of funding for the centre completely. They want to turn it into a full cost recovery enterprise with no assistance at all from the federal government.
The government has informed the centre that it is to recover 15 per cent of its budget in 1989-90, 50 per cent in 1990-91, and 100 per cent in 1991-92. This plan was devised by the government unilaterally, without any consultation with the centre. The government is clearly showing its true colours here. It is are not worried about the centre and it is not overly concerned with occupational health and safety. Instead, its mind is focused on the money it will save.
The government must realize that it cannot address the deficit it has managed to accumulate due to its economic mismanagement with the money it gets from cutting the centre's funding. Far from it.
The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety has earned its keep. It is no coincidence that since the centre has been in existence, the work accident rate in Canada has gone from 1 in 8 to 1 in 10. The centre can be attributed to having had an impact in the reduction of this rate. The centre has consistently and effectively provided a wide range of up to date, preventive accident and health information and it has paid off.
The services provided by the centre have come to be relied upon by both labour and management groups across the country. As well, a multitude of health and safety organizations, educational institutions, professional groups and all levels of government have benefited from using the centre's resources. We have a need in Canada for such a centre, a centre devoted to the health and safety of Canadian workers.
The Minister of Labour has also pointed out in this House that in 1987, 894 Canadians died at work and 25 million person days were lost due to work accidents and occupational injuries or diseases. We should remember as well the $17.5 billion which we have to pay as a result.
Why then does the centre have to lose all of its financial support from the federal government and go it
Private Members' Business
alone? Why does the centre's research and operations have to be put in jeopardy along with the welfare of the Canadian worker? Does the government actually believe that the money could be best spent elsewhere or used in vain attempts at deficit reduction? No, the total withdrawal of funding will only serve to inhibit the centre in maintaining its respected and valued contribution to occupational health and safety in Canada.
On February 5, when this motion was being debated in the House, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour stated, and I quote:
As a result of receiving government funding only-although it had a good reputation and did a good job - I think that a lot of people did not know what the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety did. There are a lot of school boards and fire departments and so on which did not know.
The hon. member went on to say:
Were we really spreading the word? As a result of not having to worry about where the funding comes from there may have been a less than an adequate job done on that.
I can tell the hon. member that in my riding of Stormont-Dundas, the Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry public school board is well aware of the centre and its work. In fact, the legislative committee of this school board believes that the centre has "Proved to be a valuable resource tool for educators both for educational purposes and for the implementation of the provisions of various acts". The board also supports the Metropolitan Toronto School Board in its efforts to have the centre's federal funding maintained.
In a letter to the Minister of Labour, dated March 7, 1990, the Stormont-Dundas and Glengany County Board of Education stated: "This board of education has relied upon information provided through the centre and was distressed to note the withdrawal of funding by the federal government and the goal of effecting 100 per cent of cost recovery by 1991-1992". The board goes on to state: "We urge you and your colleagues to look further at funding for the centre and its activities in light of legislation such as the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System, which legislation leads directly to a further rise in the real number of enquiries for all categories of users of the centre".

Private Members' Business
The board concludes its letter by stating that it: "Urges the federal government to reconsider its position relative to funding of the centre".
With regard to the parliamentary secretary's second observation, I believe that the word has indeed been spread about. The centre is well known throughout Canada and the rest of the world. A number of the centre's users are themselves located outside of Canada. It has a well respected reputation both in Europe and in the United States.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour is wrong to suggest that as the centre did not have to worry about where its funding was coming from, it may have done a less than adequate job of spreading the word. This is simply not an accurate assessment.
I do think that the real concern now is that without secured funding the centre may have to worry a great deal about its fiscal state rather than devote its full attention to the goals of preserving the lives of workers. This would be a truly tragic event but it need not be the case.
In conclusion, the government must realize that the most prudent course of action to pursue would be to continue providing the centre with full funding. In the final analysis, the health and safety of Canadian workers and the high costs both in human and fiscal terms far outweigh the amount of funding the centre currently receives from the federal government.


Mr. Allan Koury (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Madam Speaker, hon. members, I wish to assure you that the CCOHS will continue to be a useful, impartial and financially viable source of information on occupational health and safety in Canada. I also wish to tell hon. members that the government's decision concerning CCOHS funding is not an attempt to privatize the Centre, because that would destroy this unique threeway partnership and the unbiased nature of what the CCOHS produces.
The purpose of the government's decision is quite simply to help the CCOHS be more self-financing by recovering a larger share of its production costs.
Further to the statement by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Keyes), I would like to say clearly
that no one is suggesting having workers pay fees for this essential information on occupational health and safety or charging for information requested over the toll-free telephone lines. The CCOHS will continue to apply its policy of free access to information. The cost recovery principle simply means getting back the costs of editing, processing and distributing the information, and not the cost of the information itself.
It is therefore essential that individuals, unions and small businesses have easy access to inexpensive information on what must be done to protect their health and safety.
The centre has been a focus for tripartite co-operation, innovation and efficient information sharing since it was established in 1978. It is an essential and unique component of the national information system Canadians have developed to protect the lives and safety of workers and support a strong economy based on partnership.
Because of demographic changes and the resulting shortage of new workers and skilled workers in certain areas, some corporations are becoming increasingly competitive in their bid to attract the best workers, emphasizing factors such as high-quality workplaces and health and safety aspects. Social changes, including a change in attitudes to the environment, have made employers more aware of their social responsibilities, including those relating to the health and well-being of their employees.
I am convinced that the time and energy spent on trying to change the government's decision and condemning the phasing-out of the centre should be directed towards finding constructive ways of financing the centre.
In view of the present state of the economy in this country, it is imperative to reduce the deficit and increase productivity and efficiency. The latter is also necessary if we are to compete effectively on international markets. In fact, all levels of government in this country have found it necessary to cut back on a number of services and programs.
The April 1989 cabinet decision on the budget was that the centre should become financially more self-sufficient over the next three years for the information services provided to the users of the centre. This decision was based on the fiscal restraints confronting the govern-
April 2, 1990

ment but also on the basis of the apparent financial maturity on the centre. Since a few years ago, the centre has been recovering some of the costs of producing its information products. The 1989 decision meant that the centre should broaden its base of coast recovery. The costs are those associated with the costs of packaging and distributing these information products that are meant to be recovered, not the costs of information itself.
I may remind hon. members that cost recovery is not a new principle, nor is it confined to the federal government. It is a matter of good business practice within the public sector.
Of course, someone has to pay for the cost of producing, packaging and distributing the centre's products. However, one partner has been paying the lion's share of these costs, which are considerable. Consequently, if the other partners wish to continue to provide this information service, they will have seriously to consider ways of paying for that service.
As you know, Madam Speaker, the government is committed to establishing a constructive partnership with the labour movement and the business community, a process which will become more important than ever as Canadians strive to face up to the challenges of rapid social and economic changes in Canada and abroad. We are taking every opportunity to promote and favour an active and dynamic partnership between labour, business and the state in managing public funds and pursuing economic development.
Together with our partners, we can and must deal with common economic and social problems. However, responsibility and accountability go hand in hand with co-operation in national decision-making.
This government intends to establish the CCOHS on a solid footing while strengthening the impartiality and distinctiveness of its activities.
The provision of information services essential to Canadian workers, which is the main objective of the CCOHS mandate, would not be threatened by the commercial aspects of other operations.
The corporate plan confirms the possibility of ensuring the Centre's financial self-sufficiency within a few years, as the government has decided.
Private Members' Business
Madam Speaker, all economic sectors must participate in the national effort and join forces to reduce the deficit.
In the last few years, our government has taken often difficult and sometimes unpopular measures to eliminate unnecessary expenses and adopted a more efficient method of managing public funds. We must all adjust our priorities and allocate scarce resources in the most efficient manner possible. To a large extent, this government has succeeded in limiting public expenditures and will continue to do so.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I rise to support the hon. member for Hamilton West in his private member's motion calling for the reinstatement of funding for the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety.
When the centre was developed this funding was established as tripartite funding. I think it is important that we remember that the principle for this, just as the principle for unemployment insurance was designed to be a tripartite principle, was to ensure that all of the players were involved in both making decisions and paying for the process.
There are 26,000 inquiries a year made at this centre. That means that this centre is highly regarded in international circles, in terms of the service that it offers to Canada and to other countries in occupational health and safety. The government, having withdrawn the funding and suggesting that, in fact, this centre begin to charge fees for services, makes it the only health care agency and institution in this country that would be operating on the principle of user fees.
Imagine working with other international and national centres for occupational health and safety, gathering information that the other centres have discovered, then bringing it back to Canada and selling it for a user's fee. I would expect that many of the organizations that provide us the information would find it rather shocking that their information is being sold in Canada to possibly the highest bidder.
Today, hundreds of new chemicals are introduced into the workplace, almost daily. Men and women are going to work every day and in many cases have little or no idea of the kinds of things that they will be exposed to and the

Private Members' Business
long-range effects that those substances will have on their health. There are 863 deaths a year in Canada and 20,000 disabled workers a year. That is shocking in a nation that has so much to offer.
It is shocking for the government to say that it is not going to protect those workers and that it has no responsibility to those workers in the workplace. Workers depend on the government to care about them. Workers have a right to believe that this government will take care of their safety, as they go out every day and build the wealth of this nation.
For example, the CCOHS has become a world leader in knowing what the impact is of pesticides on our environment. Only today on CBC Radio it was announced that household pesticides, which many of us treat quite indifferently and feel are quite innocuous, even in the tiniest amount can affect people with allergies, from a sniffle to death. This is something we have only learned. Yet this government thinks we should be abandoning our commitment in the workplace.
My father worked for 40 years at Cominco in Trail in a zinc and lead non-ferrous smelter which was, for many years, the largest in the world. He worked in the zinc plant machine shop. It was a dirty hole. People are taken on tours there and they cannot get out fast enough. It is full of dirt, dust, lead and asbestos. Neither he nor his colleagues were aware of what these conditions would do to them, what would be the impact of these conditions in their 40 years of working life in their retirement.
Well, let me tell you what kind of retirement it led to. It led to emphysema. It led to my father not being able to walk to the end of the street without having to stop and catch his breath. It led to my father not being able to garden. I have seen my father lying on the lawn pulling weeds because his breath is cut off and could not bend.
That is the kind of protection that workers have a right to receive. It is protection that our mothers and fathers did not have, and that our children must have.
There is no excuse not to spend $10 million today when we will spend millions and millions of dollars tomorrow trying to remedy the carnage that is happening in the workplace.
I am a printer. I started my apprenticeship in the hot metal days of the printing industry. When I was an apprentice only 20 years ago we were encouraged to take calcium pills and to drink plenty of milk because there was lead in the room. Hot metal days in the printing industry meant that lead was used, as it still is in some shops. It turns out that that was the absolute worst thing that we could have done for our health. If had not been for research and the seriousness of the impact of lead exposure, we never would have known that.
I do not want my children to come out of the workplace full of carcinogens and chemicals that nobody has bothered to label or even to have considered as a serious health effect. I do not believe that any member in the Chamber would want their children exposed to that.
It is important for us to think about the thousands and thousands of Canadian workers who have died from asbestosis which comprised a large portion of the last generation of workers. We can find little excuse for not reinstating the funding.
Privatization of the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety is not the answer. I do not want to cast aspersions on any researcher, past or present, but I do want to say that it has been proven over and over again, particularly in the United States, that research can be bought. It is absolutely vital to workers in Canada that the research going on at this centre be clearly above any possibility of having been bought by industry.
One of the main concerns of every Canadian right now is the environment and our concern for the environment has to begin in our workplaces. The protection of our workers has to be one of the first key steps to the protection of the environment, our children, and our future.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland-St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Madam Speaker, I have been eagerly awaiting this debate on the motion put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton West.
The fact that the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety is in his riding is very important, not only to that hon. member but to all Members of Parliament.
April 2, 1990

The Centre plays an important role in the lives of thousands of workers of Canada. Its mandate is far more than the promotion of health and safety in the workplace, though it is reasonable to assume that the physical and mental health of working people constitutes the major part of the centre's concerns and activities.
The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety also acts as a bridge between all levels of government, labour and management, particularly when standards must be established, maintained or up-graded in the areas of health and safety. Over the years, the centre has accumulated a wealth of information and statistics which it shares with any organization involved in the areas of occupational health and safety. In fact, any Canadian has access to information which he or she needs to ensure that they work in a safe environment.
The health of Canadians has been a major concern for the Liberals and, indeed, all Members of Parliament, but it was the Liberals who introduced many social programs and the universality of these programs to Canada.
Safety at work, which guarantees health, is an extension of the medicare and health programs initiated by the Liberals. Much has been done by the centre, but the directors would be the first to agree that much still remains to be done.
Canada does not fare well on the international scene as far as occupational health and safety are concerned. In fact, we stand first among the five major industrial countries, including the United States, Great Britain, West Germany and Japan with regard to fatalities in construction, mining and quarrying. We are second for manufacturing and railway accidents. After heart disease and cancer, occupational death ranks third in the leading causes of mortality among Canadians. Such statistics warrant our attention and our continued vigilance.
The Minister of Labour stated in the House of Commons on April 28, 1989 that 894 Canadians died at work in 1987, and 25 million person-days were lost in that same year due to work accidents and occupational injuries or diseases. These accidents represent costs, direct and indirect, of $17.5 billion a year, and that is almost the same amount that this government was trying
Private Members' Business
to borrow just last week on the borrowing bill. What a waste of health, productivity and time.
Statistics gathered by the centre tell us that 39 per cent of job injuries are due to illegal working conditions, and another 24 per cent is attributable to legal but unsafe conditions. The common denominator is consistently one of lack of information by both the employers and the employees.
Since the centre started operation 10 years ago, the work accident rate has gone from one worker in 8 to one worker in 10, which is a decrease of 17 per cent. Such progress did not just happen. It was the result of a concentrated effort by the centre to providing preventative information, by raising the level of consciousness, by establishing solid ties with all levels of government on this issue of occupational health and safety in Canada.
In 1988-89, the centre responded to 26,000 inquiries on its toll-free line, 54,000 new records were added in that same year to their electronic services, which consists of 50 data bases. This service was used by approximately 1,200 Canadian organizations which called on the system 40,000 times. A total of 350,000 publications on health and safety were distributed in the year 1988-89, and the involvement of the centre has been consistent, efficient and has improved under the guidance of a caring board of governors.
In their day-to-day work, the centre reports it has received total national and international co-operation, particularly with its American counterpart, the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. There has been a strong exchange of information and data bases, without charge, in the spirit of co-operation and mutual interest. It follows that the centre has attained an excellent reputation, both at home and abroad, for providing high quality information, a fact of which we should all be proud.
The primary recipients of the centre's work and activities have been, and should remain, Canadian workers and employers. This was an objective which this centre set for itself, and records show that 73 per cent of all inquiries have come from these two groups.
Much attention has been paid to health in recent years, with a great deal of it centring on prevention. Records have shown that where money has been spent on the prevention of accidents and disease, we have reaped immeasurable benefits. We have learned about better and more adequate nutrition, and we have successfully brought an awareness of accident prevention

April 2, 1990
Private Members' Business
through various programs aimed at curbing drinking and driving. We have heeded the message and donned walking shoes, skates and skis, all aimed at a more balanced and healthy life.
One what of the tremendous achievements made in the area of research and in the successful rate of transplants, surgeries and rehabilitation programs. All this points to an interest in health and an appreciation for health in all its forms.
Industrial health and safety is an important facet of our plans for a future without accidents, disabilities and surely, without fatalities.
The Centre for Occupational Health and Safety has played a major role and would like to continue its work. It was therefore with a great deal of consternation that I learned that the government had plans which would substantially affect the centre's ability to cany out its outstanding work.
The centre is being asked to survive for two years without government funding. Such budget cuts show a flagrant disregard for Canadians and are only another item we can add to the long list of cutbacks Canadians are being asked to accept by this inept government.
We are told to go and find the money somewhere else. This is more or less what the Minister of Labour told the board of governors of the centre. Without being specific the minister felt there were "many ways in which the centre could become self-financing within the next few years". However, the minister should have known that the fund raising options left to the centre are few, not many, as he indicated.
Throughout Canada there is a search for these funds for great causes. This is one of the causes. But it seems there is a proliferation of people trying to collect money, whether it be for universities or for other drives, like the Cat-Scan as is being considered in my riding. I believe the return on the moneys spent at the centre for the prevention of accidents would benefit all Canadians and save the government and, therefore, the Canadian taxpayers a great deal of money.
Fund raising is time consuming. Much-needed staff would have to be deployed to set up fund raising programs. The difficulty would be compounded by the
fact that so many cutbacks have been made to essential services.
We have reason to wonder what type of fund raising can be carried out? The Liberal Party clearly saw the funding of the centre as a responsibility of the central government, and this party still does.
When the establishment of the centre was discussed in the House in 1978 the then Minister of Labour, the Hon. John Munro, clearly explained that the centre was to be financed by the federal government. Is the government now asking the Canadian people to accept another broken promise? Is the government taking chances with the health of Canadians due to its poor management of revenues? The answer to both question is, unfortunately, yes.
I urge the government to weigh the implications of the proposed cuts to the centre against the benefits of continued financial support to an organization which brings a vital service to Canadian workers, their families and employers which in the process enhances our image abroad and enhances health here in our own country.


Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Madam Speaker, the business plan for the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety has one basic objective: financial self-sufficiency. To achieve this goal, the plan considers the present context of occupational health and safety in Canada and suggests the following strategies:
The centre's financial strategy must stress its basic mandate which consists in promoting occupational health and safety, not pursuing related objectives. The centre's activities produce positive results within the next few years and not focus on new objectives. The centre must concentrate on a few initiatives likely to produce revenue and only proceed with new initiatives as resources permit. The centre must take advantage of its unique combination of technical expertise in occupational health and safety and information technology.
A major component of the centre's short term strategy must be to develop existing markets for products and services. The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety must also develop products and services connected with those aspects of its mandate that are safety-related and develop the market for these services which is apparently more lucrative than for health-related services. The centre must be considered as a truly
April 2, 1990

national organization in order to increase penetration of markets in all regions of this country. According to its terms of reference, the centre must primarily respond to the needs of Canadian workers. However, if it can increase sales of its products outside Canada, it will be able to finance its domestic activities. The centre must offer a package of products and services in order to provide for a stable source of financing that does not depend on individual sales. Furthermore, the centre should not create extensive marketing services but make use of its special relationship with other organizations and associations as well as existing distribution channels.
To sum up, the strategies of the centre's business plan are concerned with the products and information services that can be offered by means of compact disc technology. The plan suggests developing existing markets and finding new outlets for existing products. It also emphasizes marketing of safety-related products, suggests offering service packages, where possible, and recommends marketing these through existing marketing channels and through special arrangements with other organizations and associations.
Madam Speaker, it is essential that the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety have a sound, long-term financial base. The Centre's corporate plan established by its board of directors sets forth several strategies to make the Centre self-financing on a businesslike basis in the near future. The plan also contains recommendations on financing the costs of developing products and markets for the Centre, as well as present and future capital costs, and on certain structural changes.
These strategies were based on the principle that they should follow the methods generally accepted in the private sector. Therefore, if the Centre is to operate as a business, it must finance itself like a business, and that is what this government intends. Of course, the Liberals and New Democrats are not used to a concept like "self-financing".
The corporate plan confirms the government's decision that it is quite possible for the Centre to be financially self-supporting within a few years.
Private Members' Business
Madam Speaker, to further demonstrate this government's commitment to occupational health and safety in Canada and also to assure hon. members, users of the Centre's services and especially employees of the Centre that it will continue to fulfil its important mandate and carry out its activities, the minister has already approached Treasury Board to obtain the funds required for this interim financing. However, the actual amount will depend on a detailed analysis of the implementation plan, in accordance with the government's cost-recovery policy.
The corporate plan states the overall strategies that the Centre must pursue to reach the goal of financial self-sufficiency, but the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety will still have to do a lot of thorough, detailed planning to implement it and include it in the multi-year operational plan to be presented by September 30 of this year.
Madam Speaker, I said that the government intends to put the Centre on a solid foundation and at the same time to strengthen the Centre's impartiality and unique character.
The minister has therefore asked Treasury Board for authorization to lay a solid financial foundation for the Centre and to give it the financial tools it needs to manage its income and expenses properly.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Madam Speaker, in the few minutes remaining I would like to take the opportunity to put a few comments on the record on this motion that we are debating today. I will read the motion into the record:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider the advisability of reinstating funding for the Canadian
Centre for Occupational Health and Safety.
It is important to follow up on the debate on this particular motion. I want to pay credit to our critic who has visited this centre and has invested a considerable amount of his personal time in following this issue. The member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke has put a personal commitment into concerns of this country about occupational health and safety. This is a concern that is directly related to an industry in my area in our province, namely, the forest industry, in which many people are injured.

April 2, 1990
In Canada alone, some 20,000 people per year are disabled. One thousand workers a year die on the job in the forest industry. It is an incredible situation that in this country we can have 1,000 people a year dying on the job. It proves just how important a centre like this is to assemble the information and material, and to give information to workers, employers and government bodies so that they are aware of the importance, danger and the kind of information that is required when workers are dealing with hazardous situations and dangerous chemicals.
The reason this motion is being debated is because of this crazy corporate agenda that the Conservative party is pursuing. It is trying to find a model way to privatize this centre. The point we have to make is that that the government has an important role to play in moderating and being the objective viewer in these instances.
There must be a stop to theses attempts by the Conservative Party to allow its corporate friends to have their way in all aspects of our life. We hope the government will listen, support and ensure that the funding continues so that this centre can continue on a permanent basis.
I mentioned the hard work that my colleague the member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke has done in this particular area. In just the minute I have before you call us to order, I want to read the last paragraph of a petition that he has been circulating into the record because it sums up exactly the concerns that we have. The petition states that the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety has achieved an unrivalled, international reputation as Canada's national centre for workplace health and safety. The petition concludes:
Therefore, the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to restore the position and status of the centre as it was at the beginning of 1988, according to the centre's statute, and to reverse any moves that detract from the statutes of the centre as a public corporation with the objective spelled out in Section 5 of the legislation.
Madam Speaker, that is important. I hope the government listens for once.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being two o'clock, the House will now proceed to statements by members, pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to remind the House of an important conference that took place last October, from October 16 to 18, in Copenhagen where representatives of this Parliament and all parties met with representatives of eastern and western Europe, to consider the future of the world's oceans, particularly those directly related to our countries.
At that time, we declared in the final statement the vital importance of the seas and the oceans for the survival of the earth, and the significance of the oceans for the global environment, the survival of species and the maintenance of biological diversity.
Madam Speaker, you will know that in 1982 we concluded an historic agreement on the Law of the Sea. By 1984 some 159 nations had signed this particular treaty. Unfortunately, in the last six years, less than 40 countries have ratified it. It needs 60 countries in order to come into full effect one year later.
Since Canada has the longest coastline in the world- some 150,000 statute miles extending on three oceans-I would urge all members of this Parliament and Canadians to finally endorse and ratify a convention so important to the future of life in this country and on this planet.


CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Madam Speaker, April is cancer month in Canada.
Members of the House are wearing daffodils today to help launch the Canadian Cancer Society's yearly campaign. This year the goal is $41 million.
The backbone of this great society is its 300,000 dedicated volunteers, working throughout Canada in large and small communities. They help in spreading the public education message that is so valuably needed. They help comfort cancer patients in so many ways, and are the driving force behind the society's fund-raising activities.
April 2, 1990

The Canadian Cancer Society funds its research projects through its affiliate, the National Cancer Institution. It will spend more than $32 million this year alone.
This research covers many aspects, including the cause, prevention, early detection, responsiveness, as well as improving the quality of life for all cancer patients in Canada.
There are very few families in Canada who have not experienced the tragedies of this terrible disease.
I thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to speak on this subject today. I thank the students from Ashbury College who are here today to assist. I thank the people from Ottawa in the Cancer Society, and thank you Debbie.


ACQUISITION OF A FIREARM
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Today, I would like to draw the attention of the House to what I found when I happened to compare what it says on the driver's license renewal form and the firearms acquisition application form.
Surprising though it may seem, to buy a gun one doesn't have to provide a medical record or state any diseases or functional impairments, as one is asked to do when applying for renewal of one's drivers licence.
Madam Speaker, I think there is something definitely wrong here which can have very dangerous consequences.


FAMILY VIOLENCE
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, over the past year it has become obvious that violence is a severe problem on the Miramichi and elsewhere.
Violence is a learned behaviour that often begins when a youngster sees a woman assaulted in the home, or is a victim of violence at the hands of a man or woman who
has been a victim. The common result of that lesson is more violence.
Women make up the majority of victims, but men are not immune. For men, the odds are that one in four women who will be assaulted will include your mother, your wife, your girlfriend, your sister or your daughter. Some 40,000 New Brunswick women will be assaulted this year, sometimes repeatedly.
The Miramichi Anti-Violence Committee wants to send a clear message to men and women alike that violence is never justified in resolving a dispute. No woman deserves to be hit. No man is justified in hitting a woman.
We want to send a message to society at large that violence against women is not a women's issue. It touches us all. It must no longer be tolerated.


CHILDREN'S BILL OF RIGHTS
Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, last Thesday we witnessed members of the government vote one by one to defeat a private member's proposal for a children's bill of rights.
Last Friday, an Ontario judge ordered the eviction of a two year old child and her family because her ciying, while teething, annoyed her neighbours. Any mother who has walked the floor with a teething child will be shocked by this ruling.
What is worse is that the judge ruled that because the parents did not do anything about it, they are out, because for them to stay would be unfair to neighbours.
What would the judge have had the parents do, gag the baby, or drug the baby? Surely, Madam Speaker, you would agree that if we react to a child in so much pain that she is screaming by casting her from us, by throwing her out of her home, then indeed Canada is a society that desperately needs a children's bill of rights, and soon.
This government claims to have embraced the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child. Surely, these rights must extend to a child who is crying in pain.

April 2, 1990


INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH CENTRE
Hon. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, the International Development Research Centre, better known as the IDRC, is well known to all of us.
It has recently published a new document entitled, The Global Research Agenda: A South-North Perspective. It is the first in a series of opinion documents produced on global issues of international development of concern to all Canadians.
This particular document points out the direction of scientific effort needed to solve world problems such as the precarious state of the environment, population growth, the debt crisis, the drug menace, all of which threaten peace and security.
Through support for research, IDRC assists developing countries in creating their own long-term solutions to pressing development problems.
On the occasion of its twentieth anniversary, IDRC has published this book to share some of the knowledge it has gained over the years of forging international research and scientific links.
The president has kindly made sure that there are enough copies for all members of the House. I strongly encourage that each member read this timely document.


NATIONAL AIDS STRATEGY
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, on April 7, 1989, the Minister of National Health and Welfare stated: "AIDS is a problem that respects no national borders."
The spread of this disease is not waiting for a national AIDS strategy, but its victims have been waiting for a long, long time.
Back in November, 1989, The Toronto Star reported that one in every 394 women who gave birth in Montreal early this year was canying the virus that causes AIDS.
According to the latest update from the Federal Centre for AIDS, Canada has 51 cases of children less than 15 years of age who have AIDS.
Over 2,000 individuals have fallen prey to this lethal disease. How many more must fall victim to a government that lacks the political will to move effectively and urgently?
The delaying of a national AIDS strategy and the lack of a commitment by the Government of Canada is causing us to lose valuable time.
While we lose time, Canadian families are losing loved ones. Recently in Atlantic Canada, individuals from the four Atlantic provinces came together in a conference called the Atlantic Network on AIDS. There was a consensus reached at that particular conference that the Government of Canada must show some real leadership in fighting this lethal disease.
I urge the minister and the Prime Minister to take their responsibilities seriously and move forward with a national AIDS strategy immediately.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Madam Speaker, I rise to applaud the measures announced Friday by the Minister of Agriculture to assist the incomes of Canadian farmers this year.
In order to especially address the serious cash flow problems in the grains and oilseeds sector, the federal government has committed $500 million which, when matched by the provinces, will address the projected shortfall in farm income this year.
Agriculture is a shared federal-provincial jurisdiction. The federal government will work with the provinces to design the best approach in each province, consistent with the four pillars of the Growing Together strategy. The assistance must be delivered in ways that are production neutral, environmentally sustainable and lead into the transition toward a long-term comprehensive farm safety net.
These measures are further tangible proof of this government's ongoing commitment to stand behind Canadian producers.
April 2, 1990


YUKON LAND CLAIM AGREEMENT
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I wish to applaud the settlement of the Yukon First Nations land claim.
Many people have put their lives and their hearts into these negotiations on behalf of their people. In fact, in 1905, Chief Jim Boss first advocated the justice of a land claim in the Yukon. Negotiations which have settled this claim have taken place over the last 17 years.
Yesterday, in celebration of the claim, I was pleased to see three members who came down to Ottawa in 1973 to advocate that land claim. They were the respected Indian elder Elijah Smith, the creator of the Yukon Native Brotherhood, Judy Gingell, the Chair of the Council of Yukon Indians and Sam Johnston, the present Speaker of the Yukon Legislature.
I also congratulate the Yukon territorial government, the federal government and the work of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in reaching this settlement which is a model of consensus making.
In celebrating this, I would urge the minister to continue his strong work on behalf of the Dene-Metis claims so that we can have true justice for land claims in the north of Canada.


FATHER RUFINO NICCACCI
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Madam Speaker, I want to share with the House a glorious moment in the life of our country that occurred last night in Toronto.
Over 700 members of the Canadian Italian and Jewish communities in Toronto, with many others packed a hall to honour the memory of a Franciscan monk, Father Rufino Niccacci of Assisi, Italy who, during the Nazi holocaust in Italy, helped to save thousands of Jews from destruction. His success owed much to the support of the entire population of Assisi, who also risked their lives to shield and protect fellow citizens whose only offence was to be Jewish.
Here in Canada decades later, we reflected on the watchword of Father Rufino Niccacci drawn from the Bible: "I am my brother's keeper" and we committed ourselves to struggle against discrimination and racism. We launched and funded a new joint committee to take up this mission.
The beautiful face of multiculturalism was radiant in Toronto last night.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, this past weekend marked the expiry of the FRDA between the federal government and my province of British Columbia.
Across Canada these agreements represent the largest environmental rehabilitation program ever undertaken, as well as one of the finest examples of the benefits of federal-provincial co-operation.
Moreover, the agreement represents thousands of jobs, not just jobs for today but jobs for future generations.
On behalf of the people of British Columbia I am stating emphatically that although the agreement has expired, we must not allow the FRDA initiative to die. The original agreement accomplished a lot. The new agreement that we must negotiate will do likewise.
Few government initiatives are as essential for both environmental and economic reasons. We must insist on the early renewal of this agreement.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Madam Speaker, the Conservative government's plan to tax every service we receive from the time we are bom until we die demonstrates that this government does not care about the people of this country or what they are going through.
The proposed goods and services tax will be applied to the cost of funeral arrangements. It will have a dramatic impact on the bereaved citizens of Canada.
The effect of the GST on such services as the prepaid funeral arrangement will cause an administrative nightmare for those in the funeral business.

April 2, 1990
Oral Questions
Funeral services should be considered a final extension of the health care services in this country and should, therefore, remain tax exempt.
A government tax should not be imposed on the cost of having one's loved one taken away from them.
The government is demonstrating a total lack of appreciation for the sensitivity toward people that must be constantly practised by those in the funeral business.
Once again, this government has demonstrated a lack of respect for the people of this country, those who are alive as well as those who have deceased.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, in Rouyn-Noranda on April 10 and 11, this year, an important event will take place and I am referring to the international symposium on grass ensilage. The purpose of the symposium is to discuss all aspects of ensilage, a modem technology that has played an important role of in the development of agriculture in Eastern Canada. There will be discussions on preserving ensilage and on livestock performance in relation to ensilage processing. Some of our foremost researchers from North America and Europe will be heard during this conference.
In addition to farmers in Abitibi-'Temiscamingue and Northern Ontario, participants will include farmers from Eastern Canada, agronomists, technicians, veterinarians, researchers, university experts and farm input distributors.
Congratulations to the agri-food research council of Abitibi-Temiscamingue for deciding to organize this type of prestige event in Abitibi-Temiscamingue!


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, slowly and relentlessly we see the whole manifestation of the so-called free trade agreement with the United States and Canada unfold.
Part of the plot is now more evident than ever before. The United States decision to enter unilateral negotiations with Mexico for a free trade agreement with that country places Canada between a rock and a hard place.
This government has given up all the leverage it had in the control of our resources. Now, with access by the United States to a Mexico free trade agreement, we will not be in a position to protect what is left of Canadian industry.
This country's economy and control of its resources are at peril.
I ask the government to either come clean on this deal and tell us whether or not it is in a trilateral agreement with Mexico, or cancel the free trade agreement with the United States before it is too late.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister.
I want to ask the government questions about the crises it is failing to deal with in two key sectors of our economy-agriculture and the fishery.
So far, the government has failed to come up with any meaningful plan of action for the fishery. Last Friday, it came up with a totally inadequate plan of financial help for our farmers, but only if it was matched by the provinces themselves.
Even Conservative Premier Devine of Saskatchewan could not accept this. He said his province could not afford to pay any more and that it alone needed $500 million just so its farmers could get their seed into the ground this spring.
When is the government going to recognize the crisis in agriculture and come up with a truly meaningful plan for our farmers, something that will help them survive and contribute to our economy?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, the government has recognized the problem in agriculture and the problem in the fisheries.
April 2, 1990

With respect to the problem in agriculture, there was an announcement made by the Deputy Prime Minister last week that up to $500 million would be available to provide assistance to farmers in 1990, contingent on provincial participation.
Why provincial participation? Because the provinces, of course, share constitutional jurisdiction over agriculture with the Government of Canada.
I would like to point out to the Leader of the Opposition something he may not know. In 1988-89, the total federal spending on agriculture was almost two and a half times that of all the provinces combined. Thus there can be no argument that we are not doing our share in helping to meet the needs of the agricultural sector, particularly when we recognize the financial difficulties that face the Government of Canada as it faces the provinces. Unfortunately, our position is even a more stringent one than theirs when you look at the proportion of our revenue that goes to service the debt.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the minister in his answer for the government totally overlooks the fact that in the coming year, realized net incomes are forecast to drop 54 per cent in Alberta, 87 per cent in Manitoba and 101 per cent in Saskatchewan.
Under these circumstances where does the minister think the provinces in question, especially Saskatchewan, are going to get the funds to match the federal offer?
What he is saying is totally unrealistic and overlooks the federal role in the matter, especially with the international causes of some of these problems.
I want to give the minister a chance to see if he can do any better when it comes to an answer to a question about the fisheries.
In its throne speech of April 3, 1989-one year ago tomorrow-the government pledged to reduce predatory overfishing. Yet, whenever the issue of foreign overfishing has come up in the past year, whether it is caused by the Americans, the Portuguese or the French, the government has totally failed to accept the fact that foreign overfishing has anything to do with the crisis in the east coast fishery.
In the just released report commissioned by the government, Dr. Harris states: "Given the near desper-
Oral Questions
ate state of the inshore fishery along the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, there should be no question of foreign allocations". Dr. Harris went on to say:


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member please put his question?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: "All foreign overfishing within the 200-mile zone should be terminated at the earliest possible date and there should be an immediate reduction in the level of foreign overfishing".
Does the government accept that recommendation? If not, why not? If yes, why will the government not announce today an end to all foreign overfishing in Canadian waters?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, where is the member for Gander- Twillingate when the members need him?
This was a two-sided question. With respect to agriculture, the problems are not caused just by an international trade war, although that is certainly one of the causes. The causes of the problem include drought, debt, increased costs, prices continuing before trend lines, and the like. The Government of Canada is prepared to be flexible with respect to how the $500 million it is allocating can be spent and for what programs it can be used.
With respect to the question of the fishery, the present Government of Canada recognized before Mr. Harris was even appointed the problem we had from overfishing in the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, particularly by the European Community.


Mr. Robichaud:: What have you done about it?


John Carnell Crosbie: What we have done about it is lead a vigorous international campaign that had quite substantial results. Last fall, at the meeting of NAFO-


Fernand Robichaud: And they're still overfishing.


John Carnell Crosbie: That campaign is being continued. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and I are visiting the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the European Community in Ireland on Wednesday for a meeting on this very subject.

April 2, 1990
Oral Questions
On Thursday, we will be visiting Brussels where we are going to meet with Commissioner Morin, the Fisheries Commissioner of the European Community.
We are keeping the pressure on. We hope to see further improvements with respect to foreign overfishing.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the minister has been good enough to list a number of the causes for the crisis in Canadian agriculture. It is too bad he did not mention another major cause-high interest rates caused directly by this government's support of the policy of the Bank of Canada.
The minister is also telling us about the very interesting foreign trip he is going to take. I hope he enjoys himself, at least when he is in Ireland. But I want to ask him in particular why the government does not take steps to end foreign overfishing in waters that are clearly Canadian.

Mr. Speaker, in his report, Mr. Harris said that all foreign fishing activity should be stopped as soon as possible and that overfishing by foreign fleets should be terminated immediately.
Mr. Speaker, does the minister accept Mr. Harris' analysis and especially recommendation No. 6? If so, will he take the necessary action today?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the House is lucky that the hon. member does not have the Encyclopaedia Britannica with him or he would be reading that.
With respect to the question of interest rates, the hon. gentleman has probably got the greatest length of service in the House of any of us. In every year he served in government, he supported a government that supported the Bank of Canada. Through the years when interest rates when to 22 per cent and 23 per cent that hon. gentleman supported the Bank of Canada and supported the then Liberal government. Why does he come forward with such a hypocritical question, Mr. Speaker, when we are carrying on a tradition he started?


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a similar question dealing with the farm issue and the totally pitiful response the government made on Friday.


Mr. Speaker:: This exchange has gone on for quite a long time. I would ask the hon. member to be as direct as he can.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not realize that the government has already cut close to $10 billion in transfer payments to the western provinces?
Does he not realize that agriculture is clearly a federal responsibility because of the international situation?
Does he not realize the program announced on Friday is going to discriminate against the smaller prairie provinces because they simply cannot afford the matching grants? Therefore in the western provinces the family farm will go down the tubes. Does the government not recognize that basic reality about the situation in western Canada?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I know the House realizes by now that simple statements by the hon. gentleman opposite does not mean that they are factually correct. The statement alleged to be factual in that preamble was certainly not correct.
Does the hon. gentleman realize that the western provinces, for example, have a very favourable financial position with respect to servicing debt as compared to the Government of Canada, and that 35 cents out of every revenue dollar of the Government of Canada we cannot control? That goes in paying interest, mostly on the debt that the hon. gentleman racked up while he was here with the last government. This is in comparison to the position in Saskatchewan where I believe they pay around 9 cents of the revenue dollar to service then-debt. In Alberta it is 8 cents per revenue dollar, and so on.
Despite this, the government spent two and one-half times more than all the provinces combined in agriculture in the year 1988-89. Does the hon. gentleman realize that? Does he realize that provinces have equal responsibility with the Government of Canada in the field of agriculture and that we are going forward with
April 2, 1990

another offer which we hope they will match? We are prepared to be flexible, and we are waiting for their response.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to point out to the minister these realities. Thirty per cent of western Canadian farmers are in danger of losing their farms. Farm income in 1990, according to StatsCanada, in Manitoba alone will drop by 75 per cent. In Saskatchewan there will be an 85 per cent drop. In Alberta there will be a 66 per cent drop. The farmers cannot face that kind of situation without federal aid.
I want to ask the government this. Why is it in the interests of the Tory government to defend the ill-begotten designs of the Minister of Finance rather than defending the western Canadian farmer as it should?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this government is defending the interests of every person who lives in Canada by trying to save this country's credit and financial resources and by trying to get flexibility and strength back for the future. We are doing that by still continuing to meet the needs of the farmers with this $500 million offer and other offers that will be made in connection with the fishery in the next few days.
That is what we are attempting to do while the hon. gentleman opposite has not got one constructive suggestion to put forward.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the status of women.
Once again, the government is trying to silence the voices of legitimate protest in this country. It is trying to make sure that the normal exercise of democracy cannot take place.
This morning in St. John's, Newfoundland, approximately 25 women were arrested. What were they arrested for? For trying to send a fax to the Secretary of State to protest the cuts to women's centres. They simply wanted to express their views.
Oral Questions
I ask the minister who is responsible, I will remind her, for the status of women, will she press for these charges to be dropped against these women who are simply standing up for their rights?


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to set the record straight on this incident that happened this morning.
We are aware that in the last few days of last week there were demonstrations within the Secretary of State office in St. John's. Those persons left on the weekend.
In order to secure the documents within our Secretary of State office, as well as to service the public, the Secretary of State hired two additional security people, one for the outside and one for the inside of the office.
This morning about 25 women came into that office in spite of the security being there. They came into the office. They occupied the office. The security people asked them to leave. They did not leave. The security people asked the police to come and speak to the demonstrators in the Secretary of State office.
I wish to clarify that the police spoke to those 25 women and told them of the repercussions if they did not leave the office. They did not leave the office. They said they would leave, the police left, and then the lawyer for those women advised them what should happen.
What happened is that they were arrested and released-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we should proceed. The hon. member for Yukon.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. The fact is that these women were peacefully trying to send a letter.


An Hon. Member:: Fire the guards and spend the money.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Obviously the Minister responsible for the Status of Women refuses to drop the charges against these women.

April 2, 1990
Oral Questions

Now my question for the minister is on another subject. The pattern is very clear: demonstrators are arrested on the Hill, native people's communications programs are ended, debate on the GST in Parliament is interrupted and Canadian women are ignored. Is the minister prepared to assume her responsibilities in Cabinet and fight to restore the programs for the women of Canada?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my hon. colleague would not be condoning anyone breaking the law under any circumstances.
What I would like to bring to her attention is that my colleague, the Secretary of State, last week advised this House that a special allocation of project funding had been made available to the provinces of Newfoundland and British Columbia whose senior officials went to Newfoundland last week and met with officials of the women's centres to assist them in deciding on how they wished to proceed. The money is there. It is available for the women's centres if they wish to take advantage of it.
I would also like to point out to my hon. colleague that this government has undertaken considerable efforts for the women of Newfoundland. Just a few months ago the government opened a women's enterprise centre in St. John's, Newfoundland with the support of $800,000 from the Atlantic Opportunities Agency. That is an example of the variety of ways in which we can support services for women in Newfoundland and across this country.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister.
I think the minister has her priorities mixed up. Next she will be sending in the army against the women of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for the Status of Women at the time of the budget cuts said that they would be "potentially devastating". Surely, if the minister is willing to listen to the women of Canada, they are saying that they are devastating now.
These are services for battered women, for women with family problems, to assist women to get into the job market. They are essential services.
Will the minister reinstate core funding for these women's centres? She knows that project funding alone cannot keep these centres going and that it is core funding we are talking about.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to get the record straight. First, the women's program of the Secretary of State is a limited program to fund advocacy and education activities of women's organizations. It is not designed to support services for women. Very clearly, in the terms of reference for the women's program, it says it does not fund services for women.
In terms of the services for women in the provinces of Ontario, the province of Manitoba, and to a great degree the province of Quebec, it is the provincial government which bears that responsibility, using 50-cent dollars under the Canada Assistance Plan. We should be working as the province of British Columbia, my colleague has said, on a task force to look at the appropriate way, a better funded way, in which to provide services for women in the provinces of British Columbia and Newfoundland where the provincial governments have not picked up this aspect.
I am prepared to work with them, I hope that they will as well, to ensure that these services can be provided for.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. A. W. Lacey, Minister of Commerce and Technology of the province of New Brunswick.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FISHERIES
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the acting minister of fisheries, the acting Prime Minister, in his latest of many acting roles.
April 2, 1990

He will be aware that the very first recommendation of the Harris panel on northern cod suggests that as a matter of urgency there ought to be an immediate reduction in fishing mortality and that the effects of that recommendation would be to bring the catch effort down as low as 87,000 metric tons by 1992, as compared to 197,000 now.
If the government is prepared to endorse and implement that recommendation, what does it have in mind in so far as the terrible conditions that will prevail for the fishermen and plant workers involved? What initiatives will be taken to protect these people if that recommendation is implemented?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has stated that he shares the view of Dr. Harris and his panel that the northern cod stock is in decline and that unless steps are taken the whole fishery will be affected.
He has also stated that the total allowable catch with respect to northern cod will remain this year at 197,000 tonnes, which is a 69,000 tonne reduction as compared to two years ago. The minister will have to make a decision this coming fall with respect to what reduction may be necessary for purposes of conservation in view of the present situation. He will have to make that decision this fall in light of the information that is then available, including information that will be made available from expanded and increased research efforts out on the fishing grounds, to try to get more and better information on just state of the fish stocks.
I can only say that the minister understands the seriousness of the situation and will be making a very careful decision based on all information available next fall with respect to the year 1990-91. With respect to those affected by any such decision, there is already a $130 million program in effect. I will not go into the details, but the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will be announcing further steps to assist those who are having difficulties as a result of this situation within the next week or so.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, also in the same report Dr. Harris and his people recommend that the government seek international agreement to permit Canada's management of the
Oral Questions
fish stocks on the entire Canadian continental shelf and, failing that, take unilateral action to acquire management rights.
This is the latest group. Last week it was the Fisheries Council. The Liberal caucus has been saying it to the minister for many months in this House and outside. The minister's good buddy, Dick Cashin, and the union have been saying it for a year or two as well.
How many times has the government to be told of the wisdom of taking this particular action? Would it finally take the advice of Dr. Harris, get on with the job, and get the foreigners out of the way so we can have some fish for our own people?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows that is a very simplistic question. He also knows that the government that preceded ours and was in office for some 20 years, a very long period of time, took the position that it could not take unilateral action to extend jurisdiction, even to extend the 12-mile limit and certainly not to go beyond 200.
Unilateral action on our part would not be observed by other nations of the world. It would be completely useless and, not only that, extremely damaging to Canada. We are pursuing all avenues available to us under international law, including conferring with other coastal states to see if we can have recognized in international law the rights of the coastal state over straddling stocks.
We are going to have a renewed, reinvigorated and expanded campaign to try to persuade Spain, Portugal and the European Community to observe the NAFO quotas this year. That is a continuing campaign. There are two meetings this week to pursue that.
We are going to continue with all means at our disposal to see that these objectives are realized, both the ones that Dr. Harris wants and that we want.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for fisheries, or I should say who is still answering for fisheries.
The Harris report talks of extending fishing zones and foreign overfishing, but also mentions things the government could do now like banning fishing during the spawning period, better surveillance and protection and,

April 2, 1990
Oral Questions
most important of all, improved and increased scientific effort on northern cod.
Is the government prepared to act immediately, not next fall or next year, but immediately on these recommendations of the Harris report?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was on Friday and over the weekend and is today and will be tomorrow, when I will be accompanying him, consulting with members of the industry, with those involved in the fisheries unions that represent the workers, and with provincial governments and advising them of what steps we now propose to take. Within the next few days he will be announcing the concrete steps the government is to take in connection with the Harris report recommendations.
I think this will be action that any reasonable member of this House will support and will realize should go a long way in meeting this problem. These actions will certainly include greatly expanded acquisition of facilities, efforts and expenditures with reference to scientific research off the east coast of Canada.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, we are still hearing lots of words-big words with little meaning. We are told that consultation is still going on but nevertheless, the government has long known about a crisis in the Atlantic, even if the Prime Minister denied it.
All those concerned with the fishery agree that the government must act right away, that it must do something!


Mr. Masse:: Lying words!


Fernand Robichaud: So why does the minister hesitate to tell us this very day what they are prepared to do? Why are they reluctant to mention the billion-dollar aid program the fishermen were promised? Where is this program?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to observe the inconsistent ways in which the hon. gentleman approaches the problem.
The Harris report was made public last Friday. Today is Monday. If the government acted now without any consultation whatsoever with provincial premiers, fisheries ministers, the industry and the unions, the opposition would be in a state of outrage and high dudgeon, and of course the media would report that fact.
We are taking a couple of days to advise all these groups of the actions that we have decided to take and what our program is to be. There will be a public announcement within a few days. We are just observing proper courtesies in giving people that we are dealing with in the four Atlantic provinces a chance to give us their reaction to what we propose to do. At that time the announcement will be made.
If we did not do that, the hon. gentleman would be up claiming that we were not consulting with the provinces.


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Minister for International Trade.
In response to the crisis in the Atlantic fishery, we have seen this government just refuse to put up any new money to save these communities. We have heard a lot about the $130 million, but we all know that was money which was previously allocated to the Atlantic region.
We have seen too, just today, that the government will not reduce the TAC to save the fishery resource. We have seen that it does not want to take unilateral action to take jurisdiction over the nose and tail of the Grand Bank. We wonder what the government is going to do with the Harris report.
Let me ask the minister about another recommendation from the Harris report and other reports which suggest that communities should share the pain of the Atlantic and that we do this by community quotas for the fishery.
National Sea has closed its operations in Canso and is attempting to move its trawlers elsewhere. Is the minister prepared to reconsider the refusal to examine com-
April 2, 1990

munity based quotas in light of the support extended by these recent reports and the needs of communities like Canso?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the question of community quotas is one that has been examined in the past. It was examined, for example, by Mr. Michael Kirby when he was appointed by the last government to examine the fishery.
Mr. Michael Kirby in that report, in published speeches made in the last month or so and in newspaper articles has pointed out that economically it would be suicide for the east coast fishery if we were to have a system of community quotas. This is the advice that we have received from the experts who have studied the subject, including Mr. Michael Kirby.
We will, of course, continue to examine that issue to see if there is any variation on that suggestion that could be carried out. With respect to wondering what the government is doing, there is a $130 million program. It is not money that was already previously assigned to Atlantic Canada. That is simply 100 per cent incorrect.
It is money under the POWA program, the program for older workers, that was never assigned before. It is money for a program leading up to the POWA program for those aged 50 to 54, a new program unheard of in Canada before. It is a community development fund when there was never any community development fund before in the fishing industry of Canada. That is all money that was not assigned to Atlantic Canada.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I guess the answer to that Harris recommendation is no as well.
Atlantic Canadians are not just waiting for the $130 million. They are waiting for resources to save their communities. I wonder whether this government is going to accept any of the 29 Harris recommendations. For example, is it going to accept the recommendation that more resources are needed for surveillance and enforcement or are we just going to have to sit and then get another no answer? Atlantic Canadians want action. They do not want more talk.
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is a little premature in urging immediate action. The report was made public last Friday. The minister is in the process of consulting interested parties today. The minister will be making an announcement in the next few days.
With reference to the question of whether we are going to put more resources into scientific investigation, enforcement and surveillance, I can put the hon. gentleman's mind at rest now. The answer is yes, y-e-s. The hon. gentleman will now be able to sleep tonight.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Prime Minister. One year ago the government cut $500 million out of the budget of the Department of Agriculture. Last month it cut $441 million out of the Agriculture estimates.
The government has known since November that it would need to have a special program for western farmers to assist in their cash flow problems. The program announced last Friday by the Minister of Agriculture requires federal-provincial funding. Can the Acting Prime Minister assure western farmers that these funds will be paid before the end of the month?


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, ongoing negotiations with officials are taking place all this week. When the ministers return this weekend we are hopeful that we can put together a package and have a response to the farmers of Canada.
At least by tabling and putting our $500 million on the table, it has sent a very strong signal to the farmers. I know the farmers in Ontario, the area I represent, feel quite positive that the federal government is supporting them. I know there is confidence out there already. I am quite sure an agreement will be reached with the provinces very quickly.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, last year the government cancelled the interest-free portion of the advance payments program. Last Friday it announced that FCC interest rates will go up to 14.25 per

April 2, 1990
Oral Questions
cent. These are interest rates beyond all reason. Last Friday the government stated in that announcement that there would be billions of dollars of assistance through the prairie grain advance payments program.
Can the Acting Prime Minister or the Acting Minister of Agriculture clarify if the interest-free portion of the prairie grain advance payments program is going to be reinstated so that farmers will be able to stay on their farms and have funds to plant a crop this spring.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, the government is not going to reintroduce the interest-free portion of the advance payments program.


An Hon. Member:: Shame.


Murray Cardiff: There is no shame in doing that. We have come out with much better programs that meet the needs of farmers of today. The programs that were announced last Friday show that this government is responding to the needs of farmers in Canada, more than any other government. We are not ashamed of that at all.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Status of Women.
This government is escalating its war on women, it is escalating its war on democracy.
In Newfoundland, thousands of women are being thrown out of work as fish plants close. Their families are disintegrating because of the disintegration of the fishing industry. Their communities are falling apart around them. They are turning to women's centres to help keep body and soul together and to keep their sanity.
Will the minister urge her government to apologize to the women of St. John's, Newfoundland?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mary Collins: First of all, I am surprised that the hon. member would be discussing this. I understand there were a few incidents at the Liberal leadership forum in Winnipeg where the Liberal party did not seem too interested in hearing the voices of opposition.
I really think it is important. Certainly there is a right to legitimate protest. But when demonstrators come into a government office and after a reasonable period of time, after a number of requests, refuse to leave and therefore impede the progress of proper government business, obviously some actions have to be taken.
Why I am most surprised at the member asking is that last week the Secretary of State said in this House that he sent his officials to Newfoundland to work with the women's centres of Newfoundland to assist them in providing project funding which will enable them for a period of time to continue with their services until they can find other resources, and to work with the province. There will be an appropriate funding agency for the ongoing services of women.
We are making every effort. We are making efforts such as the opening of the Women's Enterprise Centre in St. John's, Newfoundland.
I think the hon. member should be applauding those efforts we are making on behalf of women of this country.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister has absolutely no idea how pompous and condescending she looks to the women out there.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member will put her question.


Marlene Catterall: Will the minister apologize for her attitude? Will she insist on the restoration of funding to women's centres? Will she stop defending a government that is doing battle against women?


Mary Collins: Perhaps the member has not listened. Time and time again I have told the member of the programs and the work of this government in support of women, in support of the project funding for women's centres and women's organizations and the money that is available to assist with family violence right across this country. The women from the Canadian Jobs Strategy Program assists women in training and finding a job. The member is not interested in listening to that. We are the government
April 2, 1990

that is finding long term, real solutions to these fundamental programs to assist women in this country.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Agriculture, whoever that might be.
Seeding is going to start any day now. Farmers were expecting a federal aid package which would put cash in their hand to help pay for the fuel, fertilizer and the seed. Instead, last Friday they received notice of another costly hike in Farm Credit Corporation interest rates and a farm aid package that is conditional on sharing with the provinces. That process of sharing with the provinces is going to take a lot of negotiation.
Does the government have a time frame within which it will complete the negotiations with the provinces, or does it intend to let the farmers hang out to dry while it and its counterparts in the provinces bicker and quarrel?


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, there is no intention of delaying this any longer than possible. The quicker we can reach an agreement with the provinces, the quicker the dollars will be in the producers' hands. As I said earlier, negotiations and discussions are taking place with officials all this week and we are hopeful that there will be an early resolve and an agreement.
I want to remind the hon. member of what our minister said earlier, that agriculture is a shared responsibility. It is as difficult for us to raise funds as it is for the provinces. That is why we are asking the provinces to share in helping the farmers of this great country.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, this is an emergency and the time needs to be as short as possible, not as long as possible. What does the government intend to do if it does not reach a cost-sharing agreement with one of the provinces? Does the government simply leave those farmers out to dry?
Oral Questions
Only an hour ago in Saskatchewan the Minister of Agriculture and all the farm leaders indicated that they sincerely believe that this is a federal responsibility and that they should not have to put up money.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, it is a shared responsibility. We intend to be successful in our negotiations. If you go into negotiations with the thought that you are going to fail, you will fail, but we are not going to fail.


PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, last week in this House I asked the Minister of Transport two specific questions about Pearson International Airport, one about the security system in place and the other about the crowding in the skies.
We were told, at that time, and I quote: "The system at Pearson is working and it is working safety". Three days later, the Canadian Aviation Safety Board came out with a report which says, and I quote: "Urgent ministerial attention is required to correct 48 identified deficiencies at Pearson International Airport, to ensure the safe separation of aircraft". Which position is correct?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the Canadian Aviation Safety Board's report. We have been studying it carefully. Many of the deficiencies which they reported on have already been activated. We have hired and are training some 360 air traffic controllers. We have doubled the training capacity to 312 since 1988. We have been rehiring former controllers and retirees and taking other measures to make sure that the Canadian skies are safe.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the same minister. We hear a lot about air traffic controllers. In 1985 there were 1,893 air traffic controllers employed in Canada. On January 1, 1990, there were only 1,500 .That is in a period of time when these people opposite had administration of this government.

April 2, 1990
Point of Order
In that same report it states that the unsafe conditions that from time to time develop to the point where there is a real risk of collision are cause for continuing concern. Will the minister forgo the 90 day clause in studying these 48 recommendations that CASB has introduced and has said needed the minister's immediate attention? Will the minister implement them as his predecessor implemented very good recommendations made by CASB during his term as Minister of Transport?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my hon. friend, who I know is quite serious in his question, not to confuse the 90-day period within which we have to report to the House with the time frame for taking action. Action has been taken on several of those recommendations. We think they were helpful recommendations and we are working to improve safety in the air. I maintain, I repeat, and I assure my friend that the skies are safe.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The minister will know that the March 31 deadline for the Dene-Metis claims has come and gone. The Dene-Metis chief negotiator was clearly prepared to initial the deal, with the full knowledge that a majority of the Dene-Metis support this claim. However, when the time came, Mr. David Osborne, the federal negotiator refused to have the agreement initialled. Will the minister explain why the federal negotiator has taken this decision after pushing 20 some odd years for completion of this claim?
[DOT] (isoo)


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the Western Arctic for her question. I want to tell all members of the House how proud we are that the Council of Yukon Indians early yesterday morning was able to conclude an historic agreement, a piece of unfinished business of some 120 years duration.
I think some members of this House can take some pride and some credit for the contribution they made toward this Successful outcome. It is a model for the conclusion we seek with all native communities of Canada and in particular the Dene Metis of the western Arctic.
In regard to the specific question of the hon. member, I will be meeting our negotiator later today. I have already undertaken to meet the executive of the Dene Metis. I can tell members of this House that after nine hours over the deadline and having come to a point of hopefully being able to initial some of the substantive elements of the agreement, at that point, at 9 a.m. yesterday morning, a group among the leaders of the Dene Metis said they could not support this agreement. As a result the agreement would not give the certainty that all parties need to ensure final agreement. It was on that basis that our negotiator decided to our great disappointment that this agreement could not be concluded.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, given that it is unlikely that such a deal will ever be able to be renegotiated by the Dene Metis if this claim is taken off the table, will the minister assure the House and the people of the Northwest Territories that this government will not take the Dene Metis claim off the table at least until the Dene Metis have had an opportunity to review, and perhaps approve and initial this agreement at an upcoming Dene Metis joint assembly.
I appeal on behalf of the Dene Metis for another opportunity. Let's not waste the $38 million investment on negotiations to date and an opportunity to do the right thing.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member for the Western Arctic, the Government of the Northwest Territories, the Dene Metis people, and indeed, all of the people of Canada would want to see this important accord reached. I am sure the hon. member does not want to be pessimistic. I know that she shares the hope that we will successfully find a way to conclude this agreement. Until I am debriefed by the negotiator and have had a chance to discuss these matters further with my colleagues, I cannot make any undertakings as to where this matter might lead.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: On March 30, 1990 the hon. member for Kamloops rose on a point of order to express his concern about the procedural acceptability of the finance com-
April 2, 1990

mittee's report on Bill C-62, the goods and services tax bill.
The hon. member recalled that on March 21, the actions of the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, the hon. member for Mississauga South, were raised in the House as a possible breach of privilege. These were dealt with by the Chair in the ruling of March 26.
The hon. member indicated that since the committee's report and evidence was now formally before the House this was the appropriate time to challenge the procedural acceptability of the report which he alleges is based on irregular proceedings.
In his comments the hon. member for Kamloops addressed a number of serious issues. Many other hon. members from both sides of the House also presented strong arguments on different aspects of the situation. As your Speaker, I am aware of the deep concern surrounding this matter and the events which transpired in the finance committee on the night of March 20,1990.
One side of the House argues that while the opposition has the right to oppose, the government has the right and indeed the responsibility to govern and to advance its legislative agenda. From that perspective the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader contended that the chairman of the finance committee had the obligation to maintain order by ending an opposition filibuster and so permitting the committee to consider and vote on each clause of the bill and to report the bill back to the House as it had been mandated to do.
The other side of the House argues that the majority has the right to govern, but that right is not absolutely unfettered. As the hon. member for Kamloops and others have argued, through the rules it has adopted for the conduct of business, the House itself places certain limitations on the right of the majority and so ensures that the rights of the minority are protected. They contend that certain actions taken by the chairman of the finance committee were in violation of these established rules and that the report of the committee should therefore be ruled procedurally irreceivable thus firmly establishing a precedent whereby committee chairman cannot make arbitrary rulings.
Point of Order
Your Speaker is acutely aware of the sensitive nature of the questions raised by this case and of the message which this ruling will send to other committees, both in this Parliament and future Parliaments.
I ask hon. members to bear with me as I give you the perspective of the Chair on the procedural implications of the case before us.

First, a comment which I made in my ruling on March 26 at page 9756 of Hansard bears repeating:
The Speaker has often informed the House that matters and procedural issues that arise in committee ought to be settled in committee unless the committee reports them first to the House. I have, however, said to the House that this practice is not an absolute one and that in very serious and special circumstances the Speaker may have to pronounce on a committee matter without the committee having reported to the House.

For the record I wish to indicate that the finance committee has not reported on an alleged breach of privilege or on some other irregularity. It simply reported Bill C-62 with amendments.
The Chair must again reiterate that under normal circumstances the House is only seized with matters occurring in committees when those matters are reported to the House. I refer hon. members to Citation 76 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition and to illustrate this practice to the report of the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Committee tabled on April 28, 1987.
However, as I explained on March 26, 1990, the Chair is prepared to deal with extraordinary situations which may occur in committees without a formal report on the occurrence.
First, let us deal with the primary practical issue the Chair, is being asked to resolve, namely, whether or not the report of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-62 is receivable. I have carefully reviewed the arguments presented by the hon. member for Kamloops and the comments made by the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands and the hon. member for Edmonton East. I have examined as well a ruling referred to by the Hon. Member for Kamloops, a ruling which was made some 70 years ago pertaining to the authority of the Speaker to go back to the proceedings of a committee in order to judge whether a report is in order. On July 1,

April 2, 1990
Privilege
1919, Speaker Rhodes states at page 4313 of Hansard, and I quote:
The point of order as to the proceedings in the committee should be raised in the committee. The House is only seized of the proceedings of the committee from the report that it gets from the committee. There is no reference in the report whatever to any question having been raised in committee. Therefore, my ruling is that it is not competent for this House to go back to the report which is in its possession. The report of the committee is regular on its face. I therefore rule that the point of order is not well taken and that we are governed by the report of the committee as it appears before us.
I reflected at length on the Speaker's right to reach back beyond the report to the House and to the actual proceedings of the committee, and like Speaker Rhodes, I have concluded that it is not competent for the Chair to do so on a report whose regularity is not itself in question. It is important for hon. members and the viewing public to note that none of the complaints raised focus on the report of the committee per se. In the present case no one has complained that the amendments or the bill were not passed on majority votes.
Despite pressing invitations to do so by hon. members aggrieved by the events in the committee, the Chair must resist the temptation to go behind the report and ascertain whether or not other procedures were questionable. This would only invite a deterioration of the long-standing practice that committees are masters of their own proceedings. It would place the Speaker in the untenable position of standing in appeal to any decision of a chairman of standing, special and legislative committees, particularly in cases of high controversy and vigorous political debate like this one. This is not foreseen in our rules nor does our practice anywhere provide such a role for the Speaker. That being said I can only repeat the position I took on March 26.

Like the Speaker, a chairman is the servant of the body that elected him or her. The Chairman is accountable to the committee, and that committee should be the usual venue where his or her conduct is pronounced upon.
That is the tradition of the Canadian House of Commons. If I am to respect that tradition, I should therefore avoid any comment on the conduct of the hon.
member for Mississauga South and let the committee deal further with the matter if it so desires.
The majority of the committee has decided not to report its dilemma to the House and I cannot substitute my judgment for theirs.
However, on the matter of whether this case constitutes a precedent, I want to be perfectly clear. Norman Wilding and Phillip Laundy's work entitled, An Encyclopaedia of Parliament, defines a precedent as:
A previous decision by the Chair, or a well-established procedure or usage which serves as an authority or guide when a similar point or circumstance arises in Parliament.
In the ruling of March 26,1 addressed the question of whether a 1984 incident in the justice and legal affairs committee constituted a precedent in the following manner, and I quote:
What occurred was the series of events and decisions made by a majority in a committee. Neither this House nor the Speaker gave the incidents any value whatsoever in procedural terms. One must exercise caution in attaching guiding procedural flags to such incidents and happenings.
The same reasoning applies to the present case. The majority of members in a standing committee supported a decision of the chairman. The ensuing controversy which continues to preoccupy the House and your Speaker cannot lead us to describe this incident as a "well established procedure." If the current rules do not adequately provide for the consideration of business, then of course, hon. members know that there are avenues available for reviewing those rules and recommending changes.


QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I gave you notice this morning that I wanted to rise at the earliest opportunity to bring to the attention of the House what I consider to be a very important precedent set here last Friday.
An historical event occurred in the House late in the afternoon on Friday which, in my view, had a serious effect on the privileges of members of the House.
April 2, 1990

I want to bring forth four arguments which I hope will convince you, Mr. Speaker, of the importance of the incident and possibly the remedy one could envisage or expect to correct the situation.

Mr. Speaker, there are four points I wish to raise. First, this question of privilege affects all members of this House. I want Friday's opposition day to be instated because by asking for a quorum, the government breached the rights of members in debate, as far as I am concerned. Second, I not only want reinstatement of the first day of our spring supply period, 10 days that we as the opposition, are given under the Standing Orders to consider supply but I also want reinstatement of the votes to which we are entitled during those periods, since we are starting a new period provided by the government.
Mr. Speaker, in my comments I also want to consider the motion to instate the supply proceedings, a motion that, when moved at the beginning of a session, is not debatable but votable. In this case, we would introduce a new order, and I think I have a pretty good case that will convince the hon. member and the Chair to reinstate the votes. Lastly, I intend to put forward arguments regarding the powers of the committees of Parliament, the committees of this House, which at this moment have, or rather had, votes for consideration-the Estimates that were referred to various committees. This afternoon, for instance, a sub-committee on fitness and amateur sport of the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status of Women is supposed to meet at four o'clock. I think it might be better for the committee not to consider the order of reference of this department's Estimates.
What happened Friday? Well, hon. members may have noticed that usually the Order Paper and Notice Paper, under Orders of the Day, contains a heading which reads: "Government Orders-Supply Proceedings. Consideration of the Business of Supply by the President of the Treasury Board ".
Friday, Mr. Speaker, was an opposition day-in the course of the year, the opposition has 25 days to consider a question of its own choosing-but under Government Orders. The government gives us 25 days; last Friday was the first day of the spring period. If it had been Monday the 26th, Mr. Speaker, I would have been a lot happier,
Privilege
because in that case, the government would probably have lost a lot more than just the order of reference or the "Consideration of the Business of Supply". They would have lost the very substantial amounts of money they need for government operations. Better luck next time, as they say.
Friday, the House was considering an opposition motion on the environment. I will read it since I seconded it, Mr. Speaker. The motion concerned the environment and "condemned the government for its lack of sincere commitment to the environment and for its vacuous discussion paper which completely fails to offer the concrete action that Canadians would like to see implemented".
I would refer hon. members to the motion itself which was moved by Ms. Copps of Hamilton and seconded by your humble servant.
So, the debate started in the course of the day, as usual, and there were several points of order, which of course prevented members from speaking to the motion. However, late that afternoon, we moved that the House not adjourn at the usual time but continue to debate the motion beyond the normal time of adjournment. This motion was moved by the hon. member for Chambly.
Since there were not 15 members in the House who objected to the motion, it was carried. Mr. Speaker, we practically had a whole day at our disposal, which meant that members could make speeches on this important motion which, as I said before, dealt with the environment.
At 4.30 p.m. or thereabouts, and I refer hon. members to page 1477 of the Votes and Proceedings for Friday, March 30, 1990:
The attention of the Speaker having been drawn to the want of a
quorum.
That was done by the government whip who, I should think, is intelligent enough to know what he was doing-in fact I know he is intelligent. It may be that working with the new leader, the government House leader, he too- has developed a one-track mind about putting an end to the debate and muzzling members.
Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, calling for a quorum meant that members had to be counted. Quorum is at least 20 members, but there were not that many in the House. The bells rang for 15 minutes and still there were only 14 members, Mr. Speaker, including 13 from the

April 2, 1990
Privilege
opposition. No government member and no Cabinet minister were there.
Mr. Speaker, I will leave it to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands to point out that we have now recorded in the Votes and Proceedings the fact that none of the Cabinet ministers was in attendance. They were not in the House.


An Hon. Member:: Shame.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Indeed I will let the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands make that point, Mr. Speaker, because he is the one who now and then tries to convince the government that it should always have a minister in the House, particularly on a day when we are debating sypply, or authority for the government to spend money, which is subject to the approval of the House of Commons. After all, the government cannot spend money without the agreement of the House. The government introduces a supply motion in the House and seeks authority to spend money.
I will leave that argument to my colleague from Kingston and the Islands.
Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to the argument about restoring the opposition day.
You know, Mr. Speaker, that Standing Order 67(l)(p) provides- Excuse me, I am getting a little ahead of myself.
We ask that the opposition day be restored, Mr. Speaker, because the government itself interrupted debate; the government itself stopped proceedings by asking for a quorum count; the government itself, by not appearing here in the House for the debate or the quorum count, caused them to be too few members in the House to continue the debate.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the business of supply, or the budget estimates, is to present Parliament with the government's budget and non-budget proposals for the coming fiscal year. By forcing adjournment of the House and of the debate on the business of supply, the government's chief whip has overridden the Order Paper and Notice Paper. Furthermore, we think that the government whip has prevented consideration of supply for the time being under a motion made in April 1989, you will recall, at the beginning of the second session of this Parliament by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), who moved, "That the House consider the business of supply-" I will quote the English version of Hansard which I have in front of me.

At page 5 of House of Commons Debates, April 3, 1989, Business of Supply, moved by Mr. de Cotret, President of the Treasury Board:
Mr. Speaker, I move, in accordance with Standing Order 81, That the House at its next sitting consider the business of supply.
The motion was agreed to and then there was a motion to adjourn by the then House Leader.
That is a continuing motion which stands on our Order Paper and allows for the supply proceedings which give the government the appropriations it needs to administer the country.
I believe, on the one hand, that the government by invoking quorum lost that item and also by its own doing caused that the day was lost to the opposition and therefore the privileges of all members to debate that motion were, in my view, breached by the government.
I want to refer to Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, Fourth Edition at page 217 in reference to quorum.
"(2) Whenever the speaker adjourns the house for want of a quorum, the time of the adjournment and the names of the members then present, shall be inserted in the Journal,"
That has been done, Mr. Speaker. It continues:
Accordingly when the attention of the Speaker has been called to the fact that there is no quorum present, he will proceed at once to count the house, and if there are not twenty members present, including himself, the clerk will take down the names, and the Speaker will then adjourn the house without a question first put until the usual hour on the next sitting day (m).
It continues at page 218:
A "count out" -
Which is the quorum call:
-will always supersede any question that is before the house; and if an order of the day for supply, or for the reading or committal of a bill, be under consideration at the time, and there is no quorum present,-
April 2, 1990

And I repeat those words: "if an order of the day for supply", which was Friday last, Mr. Speaker, we find that it says in the Order Paper, "Supply Proceedings":
-the house must be asked at a subsequent sitting to revive the
question that may have lapsed in this way (p).
In searching out the precedents one has to go into history because, as I said previously, there is no precedent that I know of with regard to the government's actions of asking for a quorum and nullifying a day of the Opposition and therefore nullifying the supply proceedings.
It is interesting that I found a precedent and I want to remind Your Honour that this deals with a bill, not with a supply motion. There may be a difference. This deals with a supply motion of July 3, 1917 and Sir Robert Borden and Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I want to read from extracts of that debate because I find it most interesting and very enlightening.
There was a debate on a proposed motion by Sir Robert Borden for the second reading of a bill. It was an amendment proposed by Mr. Barrette. The argument reads at page 2877 of Hansard of July 3, 1917 that Sir Robert Borden moved, seconded by Mr. Cochrane:
That the order of the day for "resuming the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Sir Robert Borden for the second reading of Bill No. 75, an Act respecting Military Service, the amendment of Sir Wilfrid Laurier thereto, and the amendment to the amendment by Mr. Barrette," having lapsed by reason of the House being declared adjourned for want of a quorum on the 29th ultimo, when the said order was under consideration be revived and placed on the Order Paper for consideration this day.
They were trying to correct a similar event in 1917, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Milliken:: Another Tory government.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, another Tory government.
Mr. Pugsley raised a point of order:
No notice of this motion has been made by word of mouth, nor does it appear upon the Order Paper that this motion would be moved. I would submit, therefore, that it cannot be passed except by the unanimous consent of the House. I feel myself personally constrained to raise an objection to the motion and to urge that the rules of the House should be adhered to.
It made sense, Mr. Speaker. In order to reinstate that proposal dealing with supply, the government, which forgot to keep a quorum wanted to possibly play games
Privilege
with the House, did not want a quorum to embarrass the members of the House.
On Friday there was no Conservative member present in the House. The Conservatives all disappeared somewhere in the fog. It was snowing outside. There was a heck of a storm. I guess they wanted to get home and they left.
That, Mr. Speaker, is a wilful, knowingly-


An Hon. Member:: A dirty trick.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, a dirty trick. It maybe a dirty trick. I think the member is right. It was to embarrass the hon. member who had the floor.
Having been the authors of their own plot to embarrass by calling quorum we are faced with a government led by a House Leader who thinks nothing of imposing closure 35 times since the government came to power.
This is a form of gagging debate, a form of shutting up the members. The government called for a quorum and then members scrammed out of the House to make sure there was not a quorum.
There were 13 members of the opposition and the Speaker in the House. But not one single Tory member, not one, two, or three. Half a dozen would have been enough. They did not show up. They were gone, they were hiding purposely. Therefore, they should be punished. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, you should rule that that day was lost by their own planning and deed, and therefore should be restored to the House of Commons and to the Opposition. It should be restored to the Liberals because it was our day that was lost.
We will argue to the second point that the government has an obligation to restore the proceedings.
We report to this House through certain arrangements; certain proceedings are in place to make sure that these are orderly. The first job of the Speaker is to maintain order. There are standing committees of the House looking at the Estimates until the end of June. These people, seriously enough, are doing a job for Parliament. They are looking into every department's estimates, making sure that they are clearly and seriously examined by the people of Canada through their elected representatives and also making sure that the government, which has to bring in specific amounts of money

April 2, 1990
Privilege
for specific purposes, does not possibly get away with some expenditure which would not be approved by Parliament.
Having said that, we are trying to argue that the House must now be apprised of a procedure, a procedure which I admit has not existed. We looked for a precedent and there was none. There was no time, in my research, that a government under the British parliamentary system voted down, by not being in the House, its own estimates. I cannot find one. I looked all weekend. As a matter of fact, I never read so much Bourinot and other authors. I could not find one example of a government wilfully, knowingly not being in the House to keep quorum on its day and letting the thing lapse. The Estimates have lapsed in our opinion so they have to be restored.
How do you do it, Mr. Speaker? There has to be a motion put to the House to restore what was done by the President of the Treasury Board on April 3, 1989. There has to be a restoration motion for leave that this House at its next sitting consider or continue to sit on the business of supply. I will leave it to the experts as to what the wording should be, but we need a restoration motion.
They will say: "The motion is going to be votable, because all motions have to be put to a vote, and it is not debatable". I want to argue that point. My friend from Kingston and the Islands will also argue, possibly more convincingly than I, because he is a lawyer of great repute and knows the finer points of the law. I would like to make some common sense arguments to this point.
The government has to restore that order and has to bring it into the House, and we in this House will want to debate that motion. Why do I say that we want to debate the motion? Let us go back to Standing Order 81(1) which states:
At the commencement of each session, the House shall designate,
by motion, a continuing Order of the Day for the consideration of
the business of supply.
It is common practice that the House is asked to appropriate the funds required to cany on the services and expenditures authorized by Parliament.
We go on to look at Standing Order 81(2). [Translation]
I will read it in French:
On any day or days appointed for the consideration of any business under the provisions of this Standing Order, that order of business shall have precedence over all other government business in such sitting or sittings.
This is very important, Mr. Speaker. It means that opposition days have precedence over all other government business.
The importance of the business of supply is pointed out in Standing Order 81(2). They are given precedence over all other government business.
The government must give us 25 days a year pursuant to our Standing Orders. It does not have a choice. The day is designated not by us but by the government. We pick the subject but the government appoints the day.
In England, a Friday only counts as half a day as it is too short. Here when we get a Friday, it is considered a regular day of debate. We, on this side of the House, have difficulty finding three or four speakers for an important debate because the government is intent on trying to waste the time of the House.
It is totally unacceptable, Mr. Speaker, that this government is attempting not only to kill the time of the House but also to deprive us of our right to speak in this House. And it is for this reason that you should seriously consider the precedent of giving back to the opposition its allotted day.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote a few Standing Orders which, in my opinion, support restoring this item as well as debating the motion proposed by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret).
Mr. Speaker, I bring to your attention Standing Order 67(1) which talks about debatable motions.
The following motions-there are several of them, going from (a) to (p)-are debatable, and I quote:
Every motion:
(a) standing on the order of proceedings for the day, except as otherwise provided in these Standing Orders;
We know all about these, and I will dispense with them, but I wish to come to the very last type of motion which is debatable:
(p) such other motion, made upon Routine Proceedings, as may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment-
This is the part which I wish to emphasize:
April 2, 1990

-or conduct of its officers, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings -

The management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, that is the key. The management of its business deals specifically with how we manage our business in this House. We know-it is established-that there are days when the opposition controls the subject matter of the debate. There is a standing order that allows the opposition 25 days.
In today's Order Paper and Notice Paper, Mr. Speaker, you will find no supply proceedings, none. They have been taken out. Why? It is because they lost that item on Friday. There are no more supply proceedings. There is no more consideration of the business of supply as moved by the President of the Treasury Board.
That is not orderly conduct. We will not give this government the supply that it requires to administer this country, unless it comes to Parliament, unless it goes to committees, and discusses with us and tells us specifically what it is needed for. There is no more in our Order Paper any supply proceedings. Its members wiped them out completely. In other words, we are going to have a government which will do whatever it likes. We will not accept that.
Having dealt with that point which I think is a convincing one, Mr. Speaker, if you want order, and the standing order is very clear, you must debate. Not only must we know why they did it, we will give them a chance to tell us why they did it on Friday. Why did they walk out on the Parliament of Canada? Why did they walk out on the people of Canada? Why would they not stay in the House here until we adjourned? Why would they not debate the motion that was before us on Friday? That is what we want to know. We will give them a chance to debate that motion in due course. I repeat that Standing Order 67(l)(p) states that this motion is debatable when it concerns the management of the House's business. That I think is convincing enough.
As far as I am concerned they have to restore the motion. We should debate the motion, and we will vote on that motion. In my view those are the three steps that this government must take now, that it has by its own incompetence failed to follow the normal procedure of
Privilege
keeping in the House a sufficient number of members to debate important issues.


David Barrett: I hope it is just incompetence.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I will not impute motives, but I do think that there was an element of incompetence in there.
My fourth point deals with the committees. At the beginning of February the committees of the House received what we call the blue book, the Estimates. These estimates are chapter and verse the expenditure plans of the government and are sent to committees for perusal and study. We have a great number of committees which sit. As I said previously, we had one at four o'clock that would meet on the Estimates put to it by the Department of National Health and Welfare.
I submit to you that since we have at this time no supply proceedings in the House we could hardly have supply proceedings before committees.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Or anywhere else.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Or anywhere else, for that matter. Having said that, I would like to ask you again, Mr. Speaker, to put out a directive to committees that until the Estimates have been restored by the government and the consideration of the business of supply has been put back on our Order Paper as an important part of our proceedings, then it is in my view absolutely contrary to practice that the committees sit on Estimates which do not exist, unless they want to talk about something else.
They cannot, in my view, talk about Estimates without having to explain how they can argue they are before the House and therefore "we do not mind that because we had them before and there was a reference made some months ago and we will go on that". It was not any of our doing. It was the doing of the government itself that ruined the day for committees, ruined the day for Parliament, and ruined the day for all of us who believe that the environment is an important subject.
I could go on for some time explaining to you, Mr. Speaker, and reviewing the precedents in Beauchesne's, Erskine May and Bourinot, but I know you would not want me to continue. There are members in the House who want to add to the debate today and bring out some other points. Having said that, I want to make it clear that in our view the order for reconsideration, reinstalla-

April 2, 1990
Privilege
tion, or restoration of the Estimates and supply has to be made.

-time presses, Mr. Speaker! Time presses, because this government which is well-known for its procrastination and foot dragging on a great many issues could wait a long time. I should like to make the point that if this was a minority government, it would be compelled to go to the people on this issue. It would be compelled to go to the people on this issue because it would have lost the confidence of-


David Barrett: Today!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, today! It would be compelled to go to the people today because a minority government, when faced with a situation such as this, would have no choice but to go to the people and ask them to confirm its mandate, because the incompetence of this move is absolutely historical. Well, if there is one thing which we have retained from the British system of Parliament, it is that the people will accept to pay taxes only if they can examine on what the money will be spent. And that is what we are dealing with today. We are dealing with the whole system of monitoring government spending, a time-honoured and well-established system which I feel, on the basis of my research, had never been foiled before as it is now by such an incompetent government.
Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that it is important, in my opinion, firstly to restore Opposition days, and secondly to restore the votes. Perhaps I should comment on this, because you ruled last week that, as the Opposition, we had no more vote until the end of June. As this will be an altogether new period, perhaps the government should be penalized and compelled to vote on an Opposition motion blaming it for its incompetence and inability to properly conduct the business of the House.
Third, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the motion should be debated in the House because it deals with the organization of our business. And fourth, I suggest that Parliamentary committees which are sitting today should not deal with the Estimates before them as long as the business of supply has not been restored.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, and I support veiy strongly the points that he made in a very thoughtful presentation.
Like many others, I was surprised this morning when we noticed on the Notice Paper that there was no notice of motion. Having totally botched up Friday, we at least thought the government, perhaps, was setting up for a prorogation. Of course, we recognize that the motion we were debating is introduced at the beginning of the session of Parliament and, if the government had decided to abandon the motion, was this a sign that the government was intending to prorogue and start all over? That of course would be the easy way out of this dilemma, but assuming that that might not be the case, with the government at 17 per cent in the polls, we thought then that the government would move a notice that it would be reintroducing the motion.
My hon. friend from Ottawa-Vanier said that he searched around for precedents and was unable to find one. The closest I could come was going back to Bourinot's, fourth edition, on page 422, where it stated:
If the order of the House to go into committee of supply should become "a lapsed order" in consequence of "a count out," it will be necessary to revive it by giving notice of a motion for that purpose. In 1877, the committee in the English Commons lapsed in this way, and the leader of the government subsequently gave notice of a motion to set it up in the usual words-"That this House will on-resolve itself-"
In other words, back in 1877 was the last time this fiasco occurred.
Just to put what we are talking about into some context, on Friday we were debating on a government day of supply. It was the government's day, and when we are dealing with supply it is expected, based on usual convention, that the government will keep a sufficient number of members in the Chamber so that we will at least have a quorum.
During the time when points were being raised by hon. members on the issue on which you have just ruled, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the inadmissibility of the finance committee's report, government members from time to time stood up and indicated they were anxious to conclude these representations to get on with what they described as one of the more important issues of the day. We concur that on environmental issues, I do not
April 2, 1990

suppose we could choose a more appropriate day to debate a topic, and we should be doing a lot more of that. So the government indicated it was anxious to get into the debate.
The hon. member for Chambly suggested that we extend the hours to allow more members a chance to speak on a topic that you would have enjoyed being part of yourself, Mr. Speaker, if you were sitting in the House and able to participate in this very appropriate debate where some eloquent and useful speeches were made. Lo and behold, out of the blue comes the government Whip calling for a quorum. The result was that we signed at the table. There were six Liberals and six New Democrats. This was a Liberal opposition day and there were no Conservatives, except the Speaker who signed in. As a result the whole matter collapsed.
We were surprised at that time. I remember discussions being carried on as to what this meant, because it had not happened before that on a government supply day the government decided to curtail debate prematurely. The government was in a sense superseding the order of the day, the consideration of supply. The House is no longer giving consideration to giving the government money. What the government did was no accident. It was a determined effort to conclude the day prematurely.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: To gag the opposition.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We can talk about gagging the opposition. We have seen enough of this with 34 closures of one kind or another. We could not believe on this issue that we would see this because of the implications. It is not that we are surprised at some use of closure. This unfortunately has now become a pattern, but the fact is that this would completely offset the whole government program of supply. I believe this is a question of confidence, a question of privilege as my friend, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, indicated. It certainly demonstrates a lack of competence on the part of the government.
What do we do? Can the question that we expected on the Order Paper today be put again? The convention of this House is that the same questions cannot be put
Privilege
continuously. At the beginning of the session on April 3, 1989 the question was put and it stated:
That the House at its next sitting consider the business of supply.
That motion no longer stands. Can we reinstate it and go back and readdress ourselves to the same motion? The convention of this House is that that is not the usual procedure. That is why I say perhaps prorogation is the most obvious answer to this dilemma.
I simply want to add our support to the very thoughtful points put forward by the hon. member from Vanier. There are further points that other members want to add. I simply want to summarize by asking these questions. Is it possible that the same question can be put twice in one session of Parliament? Is it not the responsibility of the government for maintaining quorum when we are dealing with government supply? It seems to me that those two matters are pretty straightforward and should not be abused in the rather silly and trivial way that we saw here last Friday.
I do want to suggest that at this point the House has lost its prime role, and that is the granting of supply. What is our role in this procedure now? We have no motion before us and if, Mr. Speaker, you allow the government to put the motion which it should have put today, if it was going to, then at least we should debate that motion and we should vote on that motion. There is no question of that in my mind.
I can only assume that the government did not know what it was doing on Friday and has been caught in a very embarrassing situation. Its incompetence is obvious. The precedents are simply unavailable unless we go back to the 1877 precedent in Westminster, which indicates just how sloppy the government has been in dealing with its business.
If the government is not prepared to consider prorogation, then I say we look forward to debating the motion when it comes forward again. We would hope that the government would not simply try to slip it through without debate, as we did at the beginning of the session, because now the whole terms of reference of how we proceed with government supply obviously has been dramatically changed.

April 2, 1990
Privilege


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the real intent here, the opposition has succeeded in wasting 52 minutes of the House's time. I will not waste a lot of time, but I think it is useful to put the events of Friday in a little perspective. Indeed it was an allotted day. Indeed it was an opposition day. It started at ten o'clock on Friday with an hour's debate interrupted for Question Period and Routine Proceedings.
At twelve o'clock, the New Democratic Party raised a point of order to which the Chair ruled early, a point of order that had no merit, as the Chair pointed out, but a point of order through which its members managed to waste two hours of time. It being an opposition day, there was some concern expressed about the fact that two hours out of a four-hour debate on Friday basically halved the time allotted to the Liberal Party for its very important motion.
We discussed on this side whether in fact we might extend hours to recover those two hours for the Liberal Party. In fact, it turned out that the New Democratic Party extended the hours, something that we could have stopped with 15 members and we did not. Given that two hours of the Liberal's opposition day was wasted by the New Democrats, recovering those two hours from three o'clock until five o'clock seemed appropriate.
At five o'clock, two hours after the normal hour of adjournment, when people have made other plans to go home, including the staff here and so on, my colleague, the Whip, raised a quorum count. I heard earlier about how vitally committed and involved all opposition were in this issue, yet they did not have sufficient members here to reflect that vitality. I heard my colleague, the member for Ottawa-Vanier, say that he wants a little common sense here in terms of what approach. Let us look at what happened on Friday. The Liberal Party, which was due four hours of debate on its motion, received four hours of debate on its motion. The effect of having the two hours at the end rather than at the appropriate time made a little difference: there would be a little more overtime, a little more costly for the taxpayers to handle it that way but perhaps not unreasonable for the Liberal Party to get what was due it in view of the games the New Democratic Party was playing.
To suggest somehow that a great robbery was committed flies in the face of what happened. The opposition was due four hours of debate on a non-votable motion. That is exactly what it received. There was no one deprived of any right whatsoever, except perhaps some members of the staff were deprived of the right to complete their day a little earlier than they did. Even then approaches were made to ask how long did they wanted to debate. The leader of the New Democratic Party said that they had several speakers who were anxious, implying that they would run until exhaustion.
I maintain that the actions of our Whip were in fact very responsible. The day came out as it was planned. There were four hours of debate on the motion of the Liberal Party. It was terminated at a reasonable time so that the overtime bill of the House of Commons was not too extensive and the staff and members were able to go home.
Now the question comes. That is common sense, common sense says you look at it: no damage was done to anybody. In fact people were made whole as a result of the damage potentially inflicted on that day by the New Democratic Party point of order.
However, let us look in fact at the substance in terms of precedents. Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 287, reflects the Bourinot's citation that the House leader of the Liberal Party raised and refers to a quorum call by stating:
A "count-out" will always supersede any question that is before the House. If an Order of the Day for the reading or committal of a bill be under consideration at the time, and there is no quorum present, the House must be asked at a subsequent sitting to revive the question that may have lapsed in the way.
It is very clear. The precedent is there. It is no big deal.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: This is not a bill. That says "a bill".


Harvie Andre: Or motion.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: A bill. Read it.


Harvie Andre: It is the same thing.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No, there is a difference.


Harvie Andre: It is the same thing, and at the point of motions today I intend to move in fact that the order for consideration of business supply be reinstated, as provided in the Standing Orders. Nothing has happened to the government of this country. No one has been denied a cheque. Nothing has happened. On Friday, after a four-hour opposition day, terminated by quorum because the New Democrats would not act responsibly and
April 2, 1990

say when it might be, we used the only vehicle available. Otherwise we would have been faced with another waste of time and money for the public.


David Barrett: You have other means.


Harvie Andre: There is that former premier over there barking about decorum and how to operate in this House. He should tell; I think you should get your pillow and blanket and have another nap.


David Barrett: That's fine. You should read the rules.


Harvie Andre: The question implied was that somehow between Friday at five o'clock and this time today, because the motion is not there on the Order Paper, something terrible has happened. Somehow people are not getting paid or what have you. I would remind the House of one precedent when the Liberal government of the day introduced a Throne Speech on October 23,1969 and did not put the business of supply on the Order Paper until nine sitting days later, so for nine sitting days the business of supply was not on the Order Paper.
I do not recall what horrible things happened during that period, but given that there will not be even one sitting day, provided of course we get to motions this day-and if we do not then there will be one sitting day, but so what-nothing will have happened. In reality the citations of Beauchesne and the citations from Bourinot that were raised clearly point out that all that needs to happen is a restoration of the motion.
We have the previous precedent where a Liberal government operated for nine sitting days without such a motion on the paper. What happened on Friday was that a four hour opposition day for the Liberal party really happened. They got all of the time they would have had on a normal day without the shenanigans that went on. Given all of that, I see no reason why in fact we cannot proceed in an orderly, expeditious way with the rest of the business this day. Hopefully in future we can decide matters of House business in a more civilized, mature manner, rather than this kind of ongoing guerrilla warfare, which benefits nobody I might add.
Privilege


Mr. Speaker:: I will give some indication of how I want to proceed.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, I think, has a point to make. I think the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier referred to his desire to raise on one aspect of the argument. I will hear him shortly.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Your Honour, the two issues I wanted to deal with are specifically the question of attendance in the House on Friday afternoon and, second, the issue of whether or not the motion that the government House leader indicates he would like to propose, that is to revive the business of supply on the Order Paper, is debatable.
If I could deal with the first. I think I have cited to Your Honour previously the relevant provisions in Bourinot dealing with the business of supply and its importance in dealing with the business of the House of Commons. I quote again from the fourth edition, page 415:
One of the principal purposes of the House of Commons is the consideration and criticism of the estimates and the taxes required to meet the public expenditures and the committees of supply and ways and means are the parliamentary machinery through which the house chiefly exercises these political and constitutional functions.
As I have indicated, although the words have changed and we no longer have a committee of supply, nevertheless the business of supply as established under Standing Order 81(1) is one of the principal businesses of the House of Commons of Canada, and that is still the case.
What we have here is a situation where the government, having commenced the business of supply this session, on April 3 as indicated in the speech by my friend from Ottawa-Vanier, has now lost the business of supply. It has fumbled the ball on the principal item of government business. It all amounts to an absolute scandal and, frankly, I suggest an abuse of the process of this House.
I want to turn to the situation that existed on Friday afternoon. I know that Your Honour will be aware, no doubt, that frequently in the course of this session and indeed throughout this Parliament, I have stood on questions of privilege or points of order to point out the fact that during debate on government business, members of the government are absent in their entirety from this House.

April 2, 1990
Privilege
There are 38 or 39 cabinet ministers who sit in this House of Commons. I have raised at least 15 times the number of times that members of the government have failed to attend to their business in this House during a discussion of government business. I did not want to go back through the Hansards and root out all the dates and pages, but I could if Your Honour would like to have that list.
I know that the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole is appalled. Quite often when I raise this, he says that it is not fair to comment on the presence or absence of members from this House. Well, on Friday, we have a record of who was here.


Harvie Andre: After the normal hour of adjournment.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: While the House was still sitting, discussing government business, the following members whose names were taken down as being present, were said to be present. I read from the Votes and Proceedings for Friday: Mr. Paproski, Messrs. Anawak, Assad, Barrett, Benjamin and Boudria; Ms. Clancy, Messrs. Edmonston, Gauthier, LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso), MacWilliam, McCurdy, Murphy and Riis.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Not one single minister.


Harvie Andre: How about Milliken?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Milliken was not here at that time.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I sent him home, because he had to go to Kingston. He had to drive in a storm.


Harvie Andre: Everybody else has to stay here.


An Hon. Member:: That is right, he sat at home-


Mr. Speaker:: It has been very well explained to the Chair what happened. I do not know that there is anything more to be gained, in terms of argument, going over the members who were or were not here at the time.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to point out is that the points of order I have been raising on these occasions in fact have additional validity because on Friday we have a record of the fact that not a single minister of the Crown was present during a discussion of government business. I am told it is out of order to raise that point in the course of debate and yet here we have a recorded note in the Votes and Proceedings of this House, it will go in the Journals, that there was not a single minister of the Crown present during the discussion of
government business. I say to Your Honour that that in itself constitutes a contempt of the House and it is a continuing contempt unlike the one that was used as a gimmick by the chief Government Whip.
What is the Whip's function? It is to ensure that members attend the House. That is the Whip's principal function and on Friday afternoon we had the spectacle of the government Whip rising in this House and saying that he did not see a quorum. Was he here for the quorum count? Where did he go? Did he go out in the snowstorm and get lost? He disappeared in the 15 minutes the bells rang. He disappeared. I suggest, Your Honour, that he had a duty to be here and to be counted as part of that quorum.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the government has used this quorum rule in the course of its own business, in its discussion of the most important single item of business it has to deal with in this House, the business of supply, which it treats with such contempt I may say, to then use those rules to advantage to try to cut off opposition debate. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, it is an unfair form of closure. It is a misuse and misapplication of those rules.
I want to turn, Sir, to the question of reinstatement because as my friend from Ottawa-Vanier has argued, the government now must move to reinstate this, failing which I suggest the proper course is for the government to prorogue this session and start off with a new Speech from the Throne. I could give the government House leader a bit of friendly advice, and that is that he include in this Speech from the Throne a request for supply since there was not one in the last Speech from the Throne. He may have heard me argue that last April.
While Your Honour held that it was not a requirement in that speech, I suggest Your Honour may have considered the fact that this House had already adopted a motion at that time for the consideration of the business of supply because that motion, as my friend from Ottawa-Vanier has pointed out, was carried on April 3, 1989.
That motion has been lost. I suggest that perhaps Your Honour would want to look at the possibility of reviving the business of supply in this House in light of the fact that there was no request for supply in the Speech from the Throne at the beginning of the session. I invite Your Honour to take another look at that particular item in light of the fact that this business of supply has now been lost and there is not a continuing item or order of the day
April 2, 1990

for consideration of the business of supply on the Order Paper.
The rule respecting debatable acceptability of motions is found in Standing Order 67(l)(p), as my friend from Ottawa-Vanier has already indicated. The words of the Standing Order are clear:
67.(1) The following motions are debatable:
(p) such other motion, made upon Routine Proceedings, as may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business,-
And the business of supply I submit, Your Honour, is a principal business of this House:
- the arrangement of its proceedings, the correctness of its records, the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that in the precedent, cited by my friend from Ottawa-Vanier, in 1917 in the course of the argument being advanced by the then hon. member for Saint John, the Speaker indicated that the motion to reinstate this particular bill on the Order Paper does not "permit of debate". But I suggest to Your Honour that that matter was not argued before the Speaker at that time. He simply made the ruling in the course of argument. He did not hear argument on that point. He simply made the statement. I suggest that it is not a good precedent for dealing with this item.
I would acknowledge that at the beginning of a session the motion for designating an order for the business of supply is not normally debated, but under Standing Order 67(l)(p) I submit that it is a matter now, if it was not before, of management of the House business because the government is changing that motion. It has botched the business. It now has to reinstitute that business.
I suggest, therefore, this motion is debatable, and I hope when the government House leader moves it, he will afford us the opportunity to debate the motion before it is put to a vote in this House. I submit that the provisions of Standing Order 67, which specify which
Privilege
motions are to be debatable, clearly cover this situation. I invite Your Honour to so rule.
I should also say in my submission that the government has, as indicated by my hon. friend from Ottawa-Vanier, blundered by its use of this quorum rule. It ought not to have proceeded in the way that it has. As a result, in my submission, it has lost the Opposition Day that was held, since the matter was not closed off and the motion was not determined.
That debate also, when the motion for reinstatement of the business of supply, if adopted by this House-I would not want to presume that because perhaps the Conservative members may not be here for that vote either-if it does not cany, I would invite Your Honour to put the motion that was under discussion on Friday and which was not adjourned back on the Order Paper under the business of supply as another Opposition Day so that we can proceed to discuss again that motion concerning the environment.
Perhaps on this occasion, the Minister of the Environment could be present to discuss that very important motion along with some of the other ministers of the Crown who were so conspicuously absent on Friday afternoon.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be brief, but I want to be clear on events as I recall them.
I was present that day, and I am one of those who has his name on the sheet that is signed-a memorable occasion it was, indeed. Perhaps it will not happen for another 100 years. It was remarkable. It was even more remarkable to hear the government House leader's comments suggesting that the government was magnanimous in granting more time because it believed a part of the opposition was wasting time.
When my colleague, the member for Chambly, made the motion to extend the hours, government members argued against his motion but did not have enough members here to stop his motion from passing. So the House leader's attempt to rewrite history is not only futile, but it compounds the government's embarrassment. Far be it from me to contribute to that. What the government could have done, simply and in order, was to have any one of their back-benchers or the Whip stand up in his place during that debate and move adjournment of that debate.

Privilege
Then the government could have trotted out its members, supported its own motion, ended the opposition's debate rf it determined it was a filibuster, or for whatever reason, and we would have been out of here with no mess. What happened was that the government members were not in attendance to the House in sufficient numbers to stop the opposition from doing anything it wanted.
What would the government have done if the opposition had taken advantage of it, called its troops back in and kept the place going all weekend, or moved its own motion? Lord knows, you were no longer capable of running the place.
I want to point out Standing Order 15-


Harvie Andre: Is this relevant?


David Barrett: Standing Order 15 is relevant.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 15 may be. I would like to hear about it.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I want to be specific, and I was moving as quickly as I could to be specific.
Standing Order 15 commands the members to be in attendance in this Chamber. My colleague, the member for Kingston and the Islands, pointed out that the government Whip came in, called for a quorum count and then departed. He initiated the action. He initiated the call for the quorum, then we never saw him again.
So, Mr. Speaker, I ask for your ruling on whether or not, under Standing Order 15, a member who initiates a call for a quorum should attend to respond to his own initiative. He did not. We were shocked. I was shocked.
I have witnessed a lot of bizarre things in my life in the chambers that I have sat in, but I have never witnessed the disappearance-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: I am sure you have.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. I am listening to the hon. member, but is that any more unusual, really, than on a Private Members' Bill, insistence on a vote and then people not showing up to vote for it? It seems to me that it falls into the realm of tactics, and what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, I suppose.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for your intervention with that proposition. Certainly, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, but we have no precedent for a call on quorum. None.
If one thought that the government had actually thought out what it is was doing-and I hope to goodness it had done it by accident-it was using quorum deliberately as another form of closure and that is shocking. I do not want to make that accusation but if you cany the analogy as you suggest, Mr. Speaker, quorum is different. Quorum means cessation of the sitting for the day and that is what happened.
I also point out clearly that if the government in its wisdom had wanted to close it there was nothing in the rules to stop it from moving adjournment of that debate.
I want to address myself veiy briefly to the argument proposed by the other members about the end of the supply motion. I understand the quandary, but for the life of me, to witness the government House leader suggesting that he can just come into the Chamber and wave another supply motion, as if somehow he can pull another supply motion out of the thin blue air-or thick blue air, considering it is Tory air-is incomprehensible.
My colleagues suggest we need a prorogation. That is up to the Chair to decide. One of my colleagues suggests we need another Throne Speech. That is up to the Chair to decide. It is up to the Chair to decide a whole range of things, but for the government House leader to come in and say he can simply trip a little supply motion in again because they messed it up on Friday is absurd.
If there is a method to bring supply back in, I am sure in your wisdom, Sir, you will find it. We must understand that to keep form and precedent we must lose a day. We must reinstate the day lost to my colleagues in the Liberal party. We must debate the supply motion again. The government House leader may want to work out a deal. Sometimes these things happen in Parliament.
I have known them to happen on occasion. The House has no knowledge of those things. If the governments wants to do that, that is fair enough, but for the life of me I cannot see how the government can ask us to rewrite the rules when it threw away everything by
April 2, 1990

calling quorum on Friday. It deliberately did not show up.


Mr. Cooper:: And you did, in great hordes.


David Barrett: Well, Mr. Speaker, can you imagine explaining this to anybody outside? The government is prepared to govern but it is not prepared. I think I have made my point.


Mr. Speaker:: I think trying to explain this to anybody outside will be somewhat difficult. I accept the hon. member's admonishment.
I have listened to argument. We have one precedent. That is the only one I have been able to find in listening to the arguments. During this afternoon I am going to have to look at it. I think I can return with a ruling on all these points by tomorrow morning, but it is going to take a little time. Accordingly, I will reserve.


David Barrett: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the basis of your reservation, you would not entertain a motion of supply, would you, until you have made your decision?


Mr. Speaker:: We are going to proceed to Routine Proceedings. I will see what will happen at that time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 84 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.[



HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS ACT


Nelson Andrew Riis: for leave to introduce Bill C-293, an act to amend the Hazardous Products Act (expanded polystyrene container).
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank one of the parliamentary interns, Mr. Denis St. Martin, for his assistance in preparing this private members' bill.
The purpose of the bill is to prohibit in any building of the Government of Canada the use of containers made in whole or in part of expanded polystyrene, which I guess is the fancy name for foam cups or foam eating utensils and so on.
The reason for this is twofold: One, of course, is the CFCs and their relationship to global warming and the ozone shield, but perhaps more important is the matter of waste disposal. You are well aware, Mr. Speaker, that Canada is one of the world's most wasteful countries when it comes to municipal waste and the treatment of that waste. I believe this would go a long way in terms of a model where the Government of Canada would take the initiative and prohibit the use of foam cups as one way to keep down the voluminous landfills that we are struggling with in almost every municipality in the country.


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


Mr. Harry Chadwick (Brampton-Malton) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-294, an act to change the name of the Electoral District of Brampton-Malton.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Harry Chadwick: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to introduce a private members' bill. The purpose of this bill is to change the name of the electoral district of Brampton-Malton to better reflect the communities that make up that district. Should the bill pass, the name of Brampton-Malton would become Bramalea- Gore-Malton. Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

April 2, 1990
Routine Proceedings SUPPLY



REDESIGNATION OF MOTION

['Agreed.\nGovernment Orders']
Harvie Andre: As indicated previously, Mr. Speaker, my intention at this point in time is to move to restore the business of supply by way of a motion. I move:
That a continuing Order for the Day for the consideration of
business of Supply in the name of the President of the Treasury Board
be redesignated.
I heard your admonition, Mr. Speaker, in terms of seeking time to judge on the question of privilege, as I understood it when it was first raised. If it were a point of order, it should not have been heard at the time it was heard. Normally, a point of order about this thing should only be heard when the position is made. It was raised as a question of privilege prior to the commencement of Routine Proceedings and I do not know how the orderliness of this comes to bear on a question of privilege that was raised.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Are you on a point of order?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, having gone through almost an hour and a half in terms of a question of privilege and what privileges were hurt by this, in view of your admonition I certainly would delay for a day, acknowledging though, that on this basis, committees of the House will not be able to sit, whereas they could, in considering estimates. People who have made plans and tried to be accommodating will have those plans disrupted-


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Because of your bungling.


Harvie Andre: -and there may be an unnecessary waste of taxpayer's funds. But if in fact that is desirable, I would await your judgment.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: You should have thought of that Friday afternoon when you pulled your troops.


Harvie Andre: There is the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands again saying that after extended hours into the evening, when he is back in Kingston everybody else should be here.


Mr. Speaker:: We have heard argument and there was perhaps some re-argument there. The hon. minister is letting his motion stand. I have indicated to hon. members that there were complicated and novel arguments put forward. I think I will be able to be here certainly by the opening of House business tomorrow to make a
ruling and I think that is where the matter should remain.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, if I may, just one other matter very quickly. I do not want to cloud this particular point.
I would not like to see remain as a precedent the situation where a point of order could be as anticipatory as this one, if in fact it was a point of order. The House leader of the Liberal party rose on a question of privilege as I heard him. A question of privilege must be raised at a particular time.
Can you, under a question of privilege, argue a point of order and thereby anticipate something that might happen later on, which seems to have happened here. They seem to have argued a point of order. We are waiting for a judgment. That has precluded me from commencing that which I could have commenced if in fact the motion might be put and it's having dealt with might have been challenged on a point of order.
Now we have this situation. We are into a season where, until we get our Easter break, we are likely to see more of this. I would like to make the point that I will object in future if this process is to be viewed as some sort of precedent for again wasting the time of the House.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have been well known to give equal time to the opposition. Stick around, Mr. Minister, I have a few things to tell you.


Harvie Andre: I listened for 45 minutes. I am late for a bunch of appointments.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to re-argue the point.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I do not want to re-argue the point, but I want to make a couple of points about those that have been made by the government House leader, before he walked out of here, which I do not think should stand unchallenged.
First of all, I did raise a question of privilege in this House. The privilege of the members of the House in debate, in my view, and I argued that point maybe not as eloquently as I should have, but I did my best to make the point that our privileges had indeed been infringed in debate on Friday when the government, by its own wilful and negligent incompetence, did something to prevent members of this House who had not spoken in debate, who signed the book but wanted to speak in debate. It
April 2, 1990

prevented them from speaking. I think that is contemptuous of the House.
The government House leader should be in his office right now looking at TV. I want to make sure that there is remedial action taken to prevent that bunch of incompetents from repeating the same thing. If he is going to call members of the House all kinds of names, he can be called an incompetent also. The government has incinerated its own supply day. It went up the chimney like smoke and ashes. Members of the government have ashes all over their faces right now, as far as I am concerned.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I seek some clarification. The government House leader put the motion. Can you describe for us the status of that motion at the moment, in your mind?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the motion is in front of us. He made it quite clear, given the admonition I gave before, that he was co-operating with the Chair.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order.
Are the committees no longer valid for today since the supply motion is not in front of us?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not going to rule on that right now. I think that is a matter committee chairpersons will have to take into account.
I am making it veiy clear that I am not ruling on that at the moment. It goes to the very points that I have undertaken to look at very carefully tonight and return to the House tomorrow.



Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, I tabled last week in this House a petition signed by more than 8,000 people. I am tabling today another petition from another 8,000 or so people asking that royal clemency be granted immediately to Annette Proulx. It is clear in my mind and in that of all Canadians
Routine Proceedings
that this old lady who has spent the last 11 years in prison has paid her debt to society, that she is no threat to society and that she has suffered enough.
I therefore urge my colleagues in this House to support my request, and my colleagues from the Privy Council who are members of the inner committee that will decide on this case to let their heart speak and grant Mrs. Annette Proulx the royal pardon she has requested.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour and a pleasure to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36. It is from all the members of the Kamloops and District Labour Council who have signed a petition in opposition to the goods and services tax.
They point out in some detail that any tax that taxes everything from coffins, to diapers, to home heating fuels, to haircuts, to books, periodicals, magazines and newspapers ought not to proceed. They are asking the Parliament of Canada to do whatever is possible to bring the government to its senses and to go back to the drawingboard and start all over with something that is meaningful and fair.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I have another petition to present on another matter.
The petitioners point out to us that one-sixth of all Canadian children live in poverty and that although the over-all child population has fallen by almost 4 per cent, the number of children living in poverty has actually increased by 13.4 per cent between 1980 and 1986.
The petitioners are asking members to support motion M-254 which proposed a comprehensive bill of rights for children. In a sense, this petition is now outdated because the government voted against having a bill of rights for children in Canada.


Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise today to present a petition from Lebel-sur-Quevillon, in the province of

April 2, 1990
Routine Proceedings
Quebec, further to the recommendations of the task force on tax benefits for northern and isolated areas.
Lebel-sur-Quevillon is undoubtedly an isolated community. Thus, the petitioners consider the Brunelle recommendation unfair, discriminatory and inefficient for the purpose of the northern tax benefits plan. It encourages neither settlement nor resource development in the North.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 36 to present a petition objecting to the government's plan to scuttle or privatize the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety.
The petitioners point out that the CCOHS has achieved an unrivalled international reputation as Canada's national centre for workplace health and safety. They point out further that CCOHS has provided high quality, impartial and free information on health and safety matters to the Canadian public for the past 10 years.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to restore the position and status of CCOHS as it was at the beginning of 1988 according to the statute, and to reverse any moves that detract from the status of the centre as a public corporation with objects spelled out in Section 5 of the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety Act.
The petition is signed by some 59 persons from the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. Appended to it are the signatures of a further 13,552 people from right across Canada.


Harry Chadwick: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition with approximately 1,000 names on it. The petitioners call on the government to pass legislation establishing mandatory minimum sentences for all violent crimes which would apply uniformly to all regions of Canada.


Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, I have the duty and honour to present a petition today from residents of the central interior of British Columbia who are concerned about the grief and suffering tax, as it is known in B.C. They are calling on the government not to proceed with the measure and to bring in a fair tax.
I know they join with me in wishing that the federal and the B.C. finance ministers would come clean on the secret meetings that they have been having on trying to find a way to implement the GST.


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 361 have a petition to present. It is from a couple of hundred of my constituents, who object to the government's attempt for the first time in our history to impose a tax on books and print materials, therefore putting up a barrier to the accessibility of the printed word, one of the cornerstones of our democratic way of life.
I am pleased to present this petition on behalf of my constituents, these Canadian citizens.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, question No. 238 will be answered today.


Mr. Harvard: Does the government propose to take any action in developing a
Shoal Lake management plan and, if so (a) what action (b) what
opportunity will be given to concerned parties, such as the WPG, the
Native bands and the cottage associations, to participate in the
development of the plan?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: There is no intention, at present, to develop a Federal Management Plan for Shoal Lake, since this is primarily a provincial responsibility. Environment Canada stands ready to assist in the process of a plan development as far as resources will allow and as requested by the Provinces.

April 2, 1990


[Stage Direction]
Planning with regard to Shoal Lake is proceeding on several fronts and at various levels of government. The provinces of Ontario and Manitoba, jointly, are preparing a Shoal Lake Management Planning Strategy and the federal government was invited to send participants to a workshop on the subject which was held at Kenora, Ontario on February 20, 1990. Three people from the Inland Waters Directorate of Environment Canada attended the workshop. Indian Affairs and Northern Development also was represented.
A Tripartite Agreement regarding Shoal Lake was signed by the Shoal Lake Indian Band #40, the Province of Manitoba, and the City of Winnipeg on June 30, 1989. Included in this Agreement is the requirement for the Band to develop an Environmental Management Plan. Negotiations currently are under way between the Band and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada regarding federal assistance in carrying out the Band responsibilities under the Agreement, including the Environmental Management Plan. These negotiations will culminate in "The Shoal Lake Band #40 / Canada Agreement Respecting the Economy and the Environment". This is the federal agreement required under the terms of the Tripartite Agreement.
A third area of concern at Shoal Lake is proposed Consolidated Professor Gold Mine of Steven's Inland in the lake. There has been a request for FEARO involvement in this proposal, but by letter of December 1989 to the Honourable Glen Cummings, M.L.A., the Minister stated that the EARP will not be applied to the proposed gold mine. This mining proposal would be covered by the Ontario / Manitoba Shoal Lake Management Planning Strategy.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, March 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-65, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member for Saint-Boniface (Mr. Duhamel).


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Saint-Boniface):: Madam Speaker, when I took the floor last week on this motion, I indicated that by looking carefully at a person's actions, we could establish that person's values and priorities. We could do the same with the government.
If we consider their actions, if we look at what they are doing and what they intend to do, we could try, and I think we could, in fact, establish a very clear picture of their values, beliefs and priorities.
Now suppose we quickly identify this government's actions. I indicated that they cut transfer payments on health care. Who is affected by these cutbacks? Seniors who need care, and the sick and the handicapped. I also pointed out that they cut transfer payments for education. And who is affected by these cuts? Young people and mature students who go to university and college.
We talked about their infamous clawback which has a direct impact on seniors and families. What does this tell us about their priorities and values? Hon. members will recall that before and during the election campaign, there was talk of setting up daycare centres. What was done? Nothing, absolutely nothing.


Mr. Corbeil:: Bill C-21 is blocked in the Senate!


Ron J. Duhamel: And of course they try to put the blame on the Senate. When you are weak and don't have the guts to do what you promise, you blame somebody else. That is also one of this government's values, and it certainly says a lot about this government. When you can't do what you promise, when you don't have the guts to do it, when you don't intend to do it, you put the blame on somebody else. You are like a little boy who takes a cookie and says: It isn't my fault, Mom, my brother told me to take it.

April 2, 1990
Government Orders
What did they say about VIA Rail? They said they would support it. They cut funding back by half. Who was affected? More than 2,700 people, which means more than 2,700 families. Unemployment insurance is another interesting point. Some ministers were falling over themselves to say that they had no intention of touching this program, and what is happening now? Bill C-21-You know exactly what is going on.


Jean Corbeil: Bill C-21 is still blocked in the Senate.


Ron J. Duhamel: Thank God! We have a Senate that is trying to protect Canadians.
In addition to all that, they cut programs for women, native people, new Canadians and multiculturalism and veterans. Yes, programs for training and retraining too. We were told that we would have the best programs in the world! They were cut. They spent $4.50 per person on the literacy program annually. Some investment in the five million Canadians who need help! Big deal! They promised to double spending on research and development. But they are slipping: there is less than before. We invest less than half what countries like Japan, the United States, Germany and France do, even if we exclude military R&D. Student aid has not changed since 1984. Not only has it not changed since 1984, but they imposed an administrative fee on the poor students who need help. They removed the subsidies for academic publications. They will impose a tax, the GST, the goods and services tax, which will hurt education.

I want to reiterate the point I was trying to make. If you look at the actions of an individual or a government, then you can determine what their beliefs, their values, their priorities are. Look at the actions of this government. The use of phrases such as "sacred trust" have no meaning any more. We have heard it so often.
Let us talk about the accord that is getting national headlines. It has now deteriorated to the point where it pits region against region and person against person. It has not at all evolved. It is not going to evolve for a long, long time, because the process has been deficient.
Let us talk about the deficit. Members of the government like to brag that they are such wonderful managers. Yet the deficit is no smaller than it was, and the debt has almost doubled during the last five years. Is that good management? Frankly, my definition of good management is very different from that.
The people in this country are frightened. When you become frightened and you worry about your future you are less tolerant, less generous and less patient than you would have been. This is what is happening to Canadians throughout this nation.
What would have happened if the government had told the truth when it went to the polls? What would have happened to the members? They would never have been elected.
Just imagine the Prime Minister standing up and saying: "I shall raise taxes 31 times, and I shall impose a goods and services tax, and I shall ensure that your taxation is at record levels".
What would have happened if the Prime Minister had said as well: "There will be no improvement on the deficit or the debt". What would have happened if he had added: "I have changed my mind. I did say in the book, Where I Stand, that I wanted to spend more on research and development, but I will not raise the expenditures for research and development".
What would have happened if he had said: "I will claw back old age security and family allowances, of course, as a little bonus".
What would have happened if he had said: "I will not introduce any day care program. I have decided against that too". He might have added, if he had told the truth: "And I will cut VIA Rail. I will just cut it in half initially because I think it would be too brutal to take it all away. And, as a little bonus, later on I will cut native programs, and I will cut programs for new Canadians, and I will cut funding for women's groups. Finally, I will cut education and health". Those are the statements he would have had to make if he had told the truth.
Is it any wonder that they find themselves at 17 per cent in the polls? Someone told me this morning that the Communist party of East Germany was at 15 per cent in the polls. Frankly, if the government continues to topple as it has, then it will even sink lower than the East German Communist party.


April 2, 1990

It is rather interesting to look at The Toronto Star of March 29, 1990. The results of a Gallup poll with respect to the budget showed that 70 per cent of Canadians say that the budget will not help, while 63 per cent of Canadians say that the budget will hurt Canadians.
This is a government that obviously condones the massive increases in salary given to the Governor of the Bank of Canada. We have heard the defence given by the Prime Minister. How would you feel if you were a single parent out there? How would you feel if you were among the 3.5 million to five million poor Canadians if you saw those kinds of increases given to someone who is already well paid?
On the campaign trail we know that the Conservatives are really Liberals. Canadians know what they are really like, and they are not going to forget. I say to all Canadians, let us look at their actions and we can then determine their values and their priorities.
Finally, I say this not to offend, but to point out that there are dramatic, distinct differences between political parties. One of the ways of trying to determine that is by looking not at what they say, primarily, but at what they do.


Jean Corbeil: That is what we want to be judged on.


Ron J. Duhamel: I want to remind all Canadians that there are some members opposite who obviously are slighted by what I have said. I do not blame them. I would be embarrassed to be part of a government that undertakes the kinds of reductions that I have just identified in health, education, veterans programs, women's programs and native programs.
How could you possibly sit there and chuckle and snort and heckle? I would hold my head down. I would go home after dark on weekends because I think it would be much more appropriate than to do so during the daytime.

As I just said, Madam Speaker, I have no intention to slight my colleagues on the government side. I simply want to try to point out that there are differences, big differences between political parties, and the way to appreciate that is to examine what they do. So they went ahead and slashed various programs for women and
Government Orders
native people, programs on multiculturalism, health and education, programs for seniors and families, programs on unemployment insurance when they promised they would not touch them, programs on retraining, research and development and what all else, and this is indeed a good indication of what motivates them, what drives them, what makes them react.
I find it interesting for example to see some of my colleagues who continue to laugh-


Jean Corbeil: That is what you did for 20 years.


Ron J. Duhamel: -who continue to laugh at what I am saying. That is because they lack the courage to rise and ask questions-


Mr. Hudon:: Just you wait!


Ron J. Duhamel: -and to argue and prove that what I am saying is wrong. Indeed I am looking forward to entertaining their questions.
Madam Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my views with the House.


Jean-Guy Hudon: I have a question for my colleague. A moment ago he said something that gave me a start. I want to remind him that during the previous session the government had introduced a day care bill which was duly passed by the House. When I pointed out that the legislation had been stalled by the Senate not long after, he replied: You always have to blame somebody else. That is what did happen. The program did not necessarily have the wholehearted support of the Liberal Party, but the bill did make it through the House and was rejected by the other place. And that is not the only example.
A few minutes ago my colleague said something about training programs-


Mr. Speller:: It wasn't turned down by the Senate. [Translation]


Jean-Guy Hudon: You breaking wind, or what? What is going on?


Ron J. Duhamel: The question! Ask your question, I can hardly wait to answer!

April 2, 1990
Government Orders


Jean-Guy Hudon: Sure, tell your colleague to let me speak and stop breaking wind just so I can complete my question.
As it happens, Bill C-21 which is still under consideration includes a provision to transfer funds for better training programs. We are not necessarily saying they were cut off. The money is there. That is how I interpret Bill C-21. This is not the first time the other place- Take Bill C-22 on drugs, patents and what have you, it made four or five return trips between the two Houses, but we finally enacted the legislation. With respect to free trade we even had to go through an election before we managed to get it through. My colleague should not belittle the role of the Senate or of the other House because it is now systematically blocking a measure which the government has every right to adopt, particularly when taken in the context of budget expenditures and increases.
Madam Speaker, I want to tell you that between 1980 and 1985 the percentages of budget increases were 3.7, 11.9, 10.3, 5.8 and 8.9. Since the new government took over, the increases in real federal expenditures were 2.2, 0.4, 2.6, 2.3 and 2.2. This country simply has to be put back on the right track. I agree with my colleague that there have been cut-backs in various sectors or various fields. But I must remind him that we did not cut back in education. The provinces may have received somewhat less than they expected to get, but there was an increase in some budgets or in the transfers made to the provinces.


Ron J. Duhamel: Concerning the daycare centres, Madam Speaker, I am going to try and deal in turn with each and every point. If it is true that the bill died in the Senate, it is also true that if the government had really wanted to, it could have introduced a new bill during this session. It should not try, therefore, to blame this on another level of government. It is well aware that it could have done so. But it did not really want to do so for lack of courage and should not therefore try to pass the buck.
Now, concerning Bill C-21, which is now before the Senate, you have not yet recognized-perhaps if you did, I could accept that-that workers and employers will have to foot the bill for many of these training and
re-training programs, and that the government has withdrawn its participation almost entirely from the training and re-training area. That is something you are not saying! Beside that, the Prime Minister had claimed that his government would have the best programs in the world. Ask any worker, any employer, any Canadian man or woman whether you had the very best programs in the world. It is not true! That is going a little bit too far.
You mentioned that your expenditures had increased by 2 or 1 per cent. Listen, I do not know where you got your data, because in 1984, you had $70 million in revenue and you have now over $120 billion. What have you done with our money, the money of Canadian men and women? Where have you spent it all?
You have not recognized either that you had doubled the endebtment, but you did indeed.


Jean Corbeil: How about the interests on the debt?


Ron J. Duhamel: I made a little calculation, and I should like you to make the same, and if I am wrong, I will stand up in the House and apologize. But I made a little calculation, and if you use the interest on the debt which existed in 1984, you will realize that you spent more, Sir.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Madam Speaker, I am glad that my colleague from St. Boniface raised the matter of legislation brought forward by the government since the election, because I am convinced in my own mind as well, that if the people had been told what the government was going to do to VIA Rail, it would have been trashed in the 1988 election.
If the people had been told about the details of the GST, the government would not have been re-elected. If the people had been told about the UIC legislation, it would not have had a hope in the 1988 election. If the people of Canada had been told about the proposed cuts in transfer payments to the provinces, it would not have won the 1988 election. I think that my friend for St. Boniface has made some very good points.
I feel that the government has behaved so badly, so irresponsibly and so undemocratically since the 1988 election that it has lost all moral authority to govern the country. I want to ask my friend from St. Boniface whether he shares that feeling.
April 2, 1990


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague. First, I am absolutely delighted that he understood the points that I made. I am extremely suspicious that my colleagues opposite also understood them, but they did did not want to admit it. I am quite convinced that that is true.
Yes, the government has lost the moral authority to govern. It has lost the confidence of the people. Fewer than 20 per cent of Canadians have confidence in this government. If you take the next five Canadians that you meet and there is a part of one who has some confidence in you the other four and a little bit will have no confidence in you. The government has lost the moral will to survive. It does not have the moral authority to govern.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-65, the Borrowing Authority Act for 1990-91. This is the bill which authorizes the government to borrow funds to meet its financial obligations for the coming year.
Bill C-65 will also permit the government to deal with the necessary foreign exchange transactions. The amount covered by this bill is $25.5 billion.
As hon. members are aware, the deficit projection for the 1990-91 fiscal year is $28.5 billion. That leaves a $3 billion difference which I will explain to you.
There is $7.5 billion available to the government from non-budgetary sources. One such source is from the repayments of loans advanced to the Public Service Superannuation Account in the past years which brings the borrowing requirement down to $21 billion. However, the government must have the flexibility to conduct its foreign exchange transactions. This will require a reserve of $3 billion, which is the same amount as was required last year.
In addition, the government requires a further $1.5 billion to cover foreign exchange fund earnings. While these earnings show up in the public accounts as revenue, they are not available for operating purposes since the funds are retained in the exchange fund account.
While government would obviously prefer not to have to borrow at all, this reduced requirement for the coming
Government Orders
year is a reflection of the progress that is being made in rationalizing the economy. In fact, this year's financial requirement represents 3.1 per cent of Gross Domestic Product and that is down from 6.7 per cent in previous years.
This progress will continue. By 1994-95, the government's borrowing requirements will be reduced to zero. Indeed, the government predicts a billion dollar surplus for that year at which point bonds and treasury bills be begin to be repaid.
Therefore, this bill should be viewed in context with the government's over-all thrust to deal with the deficit and the debt. The budgetary measures that were announced by the finance minister in February are a key step in that over-all strategy.
The budget stressed that to achieve our potential for economic growth and job creation we must build on the solid fiscal progress that we have been making since 1984. By doing this, we will gain the kind of greater flexibility and independence of action that we need to meet the priorities of Canadians and the government.
To get the deficit down and to restore a better fiscal balance, we are working very diligently to reduce our expenditures, and that is a vital component of the exercise. The growth of spending on all government programs and services has been kept well below the growth of the economy and even below the rate of inflation. The money used to meet the costs of running the internal operations of government has been reduced from $17.5 billion in 1984 to $16.8 billion today. That is in spite of a larger workload, and I think that that shows real progress.
The Public Service has also been reduced by 12,000. In fact, it is the same size today that it was in 1973 and that is despite a 20 per cent increase in population. That shows real progress and real commitment to rationalizing our economy.
In December, the President of the Treasury Board announced further steps to help us eliminate waste, to improve efficiency, and to save another $1.4 billion over the next four years. In doing this, we have imposed a freeze on federal government construction in Ottawa, for example. We have introduced travel restrictions and we are amalgamating or closing some government agen-

April 2, 1990
Government Orders
cies. We will continue to reduce waste and inefficiency in government operation in the years ahead.
The February budget reported on our progress in achieving and increasing an operating surplus. When we first came to office, the federal government was spending $16 billion more on programs-everything except interest costs-than it collected in revenues. In other words, we had an operating deficit. Today, instead of an operating deficit, we have a surplus. The amount by which revenues exceed program spending is $9 billion. That is a turnaround of $25 billion in just five years. With tight discipline and good management, program spending has been dropped from 19.5 per cent of the economy in 1984 to 16 per cent this year. That is its lowest level in 20 years.
The deficit problem that we faced when we came to office was not just a question of too much spending. As the share of national income, federal revenues had been falling since the mid-1970s. This happened for a number of reasons, including the growth in special tax breaks and flaws in the federal sales tax, that is the old manufacturing sales tax which we are about to replace. We eliminated those tax breaks, we closed tax loopholes, and we increased revenues. As a result of these measures, we have brought about a fundamental structural change in the balance of spending and revenues. It is important to note that 70 per cent of this progress results from our expenditure restraint programs.
Our progress towards a better fiscal balance has not come easily. It has been a hard-earned task. We have all felt the impact of the measures needed to protect and strengthen our future, there is no doubt about that. Many Canadians have had to face difficult adjustments during this period of time. But the economic pay-off has been considerable and continues to be considerable. The economy has enjoyed several years-in fact, seven to be exact-of expansion. Employment has grown steadily over this time and grown strongly. After-tax incomes have gone up. Economic opportunities have been increased and poverty has been reduced in the very best way possible, through the creation of more jobs for Canadians, and that is the best way to reduce poverty.
Our national debt, which was $200 billion when we took office in 1984, has grown, we admit, to $350 billion
this year, of which more than 80 per cent consists of the compound interest on the original $200 billion. That demonstrates how important it is to get off the treadmill of borrowing money to pay interest on the past debt, and it helps explain why the deficit is still at $30 billion in spite of the reduction in our spending and the actions we have taken to increase revenues over the past five years. It is not easy to reverse a deficit of $200 billion.
The budget set out, however, an expenditure control plan that will ensure that our operating surplus continues to grow. It will allow us to get off the treadmill of debt. However, that means that we must reduce the burden of the rapidly growing interest payments. To do this, we must deal firmly with the greatest single threat to our continued fiscal and economic progress and that is high inflation.
After seven years of strong economic growth, the economy has exceeded its productivity capacity. This has fuelled inflation and the current slowing of the economy is helping to ease the strain, but the underlying inflationary pressures remain far too high. We must lower inflation as quickly as possible to enable interest rates to come down. That way we can put the economy back on a sustainable path of expansion and make even further and more necessary progress on that deficit.
The prospects for lower inflation and interest rates depend on keeping our costs under control. Responsible price and wage behaviour will ensure that the demands we make on the economy are within its capacity to grow and to produce income. Federal government wage increases have been below the inflation rate and below the pace of wage increases in the private sector since 1984. The budget reaffirmed the government's commitment to this kind of wage restraint.
There simply are no shortcuts to solving our economic and fiscal problems and there is absolutely no magic wand that we can wave to lower interest rates. What we must do is deal with the causes and not with the symptoms. Experience shows us that interest rates are a symptom and that inflation is indeed the cause.
The measures announced in the budget will help to ease inflationary pressures and create a better climate for lower interest rates. This, in turn, will help to reduce the deficit in the years ahead. Lower inflation and interest rates and lower deficits will be mutually
April 2, 1990

reinforcing and lead to a return of a strong and sustained growth pattern in the country.
Together with the measures announced in December, the expenditure restraint measures in the budget will produce savings of $3 billion in 1990-91 and almost $4 billion in the following year. Total expenditure savings of over $19 billion will be achieved over the next five years. As a result, the budget makes it possible to restore the deficit to its downward track, without an increase in taxes. Taxes will not go up.
The deficit will be reduced to $28.5 billion in 1990-91 and cut in half to $14 billion by 1993-94. By the following year, the deficit will be further reduced to $10 billion. The operating surplus of revenues over program spending will, at that point, reach $31 billion. Program spending will fall to 14.2 per cent of national income. That will be the lowest level since the late 1960s. The burden of debt will be reduced as the national debt shrinks relative to national income. The government will begin to be able to pay down its bonds and its treasury bills.
Our economic plan and the firm actions that we have taken in the budget as part of that plan have brought in a clear prospect of lower inflation and a steadily declining deficit. They will help ensure that the government's fiscal position in the 1990s can support the programs that Canadians value most. By persevering, we will attain the greatest control over our destiny and a greater ability to devote our resources to investments in a rising standard of living and a better quality of life for all Canadians.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to question my colleague.
I know that the economy is being discussed at many of the Liberal delegate selection meetings and I wonder if my hon. friend who is from Winnipeg South would be prepared to comment on the delegate selection meeting which took place yesterday. There has been an awful thing happen, Madam Speaker, and I know that you would share my dismay at this. The Liberal delegate selection meetings are stamping out freedom of speech. I am glad my hon. friend is here, because, according to a newspaper report, one Liberal MP, who happens to be in the House today, said:
Government Orders
"It is anything but a clean act," grumbled John Harvard
(Winnipeg-St. James). "Look at this. It's a public forum. It's
democracy-at least it's supposed to be."
My hon. friend is from Winnipeg and would have seen this deplorable thing happen in her own city. I am sure it is something that all Manitobans must be dismayed by and probably they will be leaving the party in droves. There are not many there, but they would be a drove if they all got together. I wonder if my hon. friend has any comments, within the context of the debate of course, about the dismay in which my hon. friend from Winnipeg-St. James finds himself.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. friend, the minister, for his question. In fact, I did watch the debate yesterday. I was a little surprised at the lack of a clear-cut alternative that was presented by the opposition to any of the financial or fiscal measures that were put forward as questions by the moderator. In fact, when the questions were posed to all the members, there was a great deal of conflict over just what they would do in order to deal with the economic situation in Canada. Some were in favour of the GST. Some admitted that the GST had to go ahead because otherwise they did not have any alternative at all.
All agreed, I think, that the federal sales tax had to go. In fact, nobody had a clear-cut plan. One of the members thought perhaps a single tax was a good idea, but there was no clear-cut plan to deal with the economy or to deal with the fiscal problems of the country. Certainly, none of them had any idea at all and no concrete suggestion to make about how they might be able to bring down the deficit and deal with the debt. They did not get into anything half as complex as the question of interest rates because, unfortunately, I think the interest rates were a little over their head.
I must say that I was very surprised at the lack of plan, the lack of thinking, the lack of program shown by the Liberal leadership candidates and I think that bodes very badly for the future of the country.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg South, in her usual eloquent way, has indicated that she has never had any suggestions from this side about reducing the deficit. I need only remind her of my suggestions that she fire half the cabinet. We have got too large a cabinet and we would save millions by doing that. She could also fire a

April 2, 1990
Government Orders
lot of the parliamentary secretaries and arrange for government advertising to be cut. This profligate government that she supports is spending $14 million advertising the goods and services tax and Canadians do not want the tax. It is trying to convince them by generous hand-outs of money that that is a wise expenditure. Also, the government is spending over $300 million to set up this tax. Does she not think that is wasteful?
The hon. member stands in the House today and says that we never make suggestions on how to save money. We have said scrap this tax and save $300 million; scrap the advertising campaign on this tax and the other government advertising and save another $100 million; cut the cabinet in half and we would save probably another $100 million. Yet the member sits here day after day and says we never make any suggestions.
In addition, my hon. friend from Broadview-Greenwood has proposed an alternative tax. We never hear any discussion about the single tax from the other side.
In light of that fact, first, will she apologize to the House for suggesting that we on this side have never made suggestions?
Second, I would like her to comment on another matter. She cited all these figures about deficit reduction. I wish I had the quote here at my fingertips and, had I known she was going to spout such nonsense, I would have brought it with me. In 1985 the Minister of Finance predicted that this year the deficit for the budgetary operations of the government would be $14 billion or $15 billion. Now it is $30 billion. Does she not feel that it is time this government got out and made way for one that can manage the country, instead of one that mismanages the way this one does?


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Well, Madam Speaker, listening to the numbers that came from my hon. friend across the way, I can certainly understand why he is not the finance critic. It demonstrates his total lack of understanding of how the finances of the country work. He tends to think one can find $100 million here and $100 million there. That is the kind of thinking that got us into so much trouble in the first place. They used $100 million to spend here, $100 million to spend there and $100 million in another
place. The next thing we knew the country was in hock up to its ears.
In addition to that, the hon. member has made a comment in the House several times that somehow or other we should not spend money on information programs to inform the Canadian public about what the government is doing and what the government plans to do. That may have been the method of governing the country used by the Liberals in their term of office. It was a period of fear, a period of secrecy, and a period of the right hand not knowing what the left hand was doing.
This government is an open government, and we think it is important that Canadians not only know what we are doing, but understand what we are doing. We take the time and make the effort to ensure that there is ample room for debate and discussion, informed debate and informed discussion.
Information campaigns cost money. That is true. But I think it is extremely important and a very good investment that Canadians be informed of the business of the government so that they can make their appropriate assessments on the polling day that will surely come when we will see the Liberal opposition once more go down to defeat.


John Harvard: Madam Speaker, just let me say in response to what the hon. Minister of Transport said a few moments ago that the Liberal Party respects individuality. The Liberal Party is not a monolith and the Liberal Party believes in not muzzling people when they have a point of view. If hotel security staff or people who are in charge of security make what some people believe to be a mistake, do you know what? We are allowed to comment on that. That is all I would say to that remark. As long as the Liberal Party stands for democracy, openness, and fairness, it will behave exactly like that.
I have a question for the hon. member from Winnipeg South. She asked us a moment ago: "Do you have a clear, well-defined plan?" The government has said that and asked that so many times, I want to throw it back to the hon. member from Winnipeg South. In the last five years the government has raised the debt of the country by over 100 percent; from $170 billion to $360 billion. Talk about a giant leap! Talk about a quantum leap! I want to ask the hon. member from Winnipeg South whether that sprung from a well-defined, clear plan?

April 2, 1990

Where was the plan to raise our debt over 100 per cent, over $100 billion? It is a debt that is now costing the taxpayer, every year, about $39 billion in interest charges. Where was your plan? If you have it, produce it.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows very well that the debt was out of control when this government took over in 1984. It is very difficult to turn a trend around that has been entrenched in the country by the Liberals for over a period of 20 years or 30 years. I think that in the last five years the government has made remarkable progress in trying to return this economy to something that is rational and that will put more dollars in the pockets of Canadians, more choices in the pockets of Canadians, more jobs out there for Canadians, and more opportunities for business people.
We were going backward before. Now at least our plans are putting us in the place where we can progress forward.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Madam Speaker, we have heard a great example which reminded me of the deceased British philosopher, Bertrand Russell. When asked one day about economists, he said he knew of only two economists in the world who understood the intricacies of international monetary economic systems. But, he said, unfortunately, they disagree on the solutions. I guess like statistics and like economists, the more figures and the more economists you can have.
I would ask a fundamental question. Is it the conventional wisdom of the day if one were to ask an economist or people who discuss economics-we hear a lot about inflation-how would we define inflation? Conventional wisdom tells us that inflation, in very common terms, is too many dollars going after too few goods. Does anybody in the country feel that there is a lack of goods on the market? Does anybody feel there are too many dollars on the market after these goods? It is incredible that we can live in a highly technical society and yet pay homage to a myth. It is incredible that this myth can continue. We talk about inflation, but do we really know any more what brings it about? I doubt it.
Government Orders
I hear economists discussing how the economy works. One thing I grant to most economists is that they are experts at explaining where they went wrong once the damage is done.
When it comes to the budget, the average Canadian undoubtedly finds the whole budget process a confusing mass-I will not say mess-of information. Basically we want to know how much we are going to have to pay and, if the occasion ever arose, how much less. Most people do not have the time or the inclination to study the whole budgetary process. It is a complicated, highly complex system, to say the least. Even at that there are many factors that come into play. Of course, there are what we call political considerations. There are interest groups represented by some form of lobby to put forward an argument or favour. Big business interests are taken seriously because it is concerned that we have a strong economy; at least that has always been its line.
What is the role of the majority of the Canadian taxpayers or working Canadians? Where is the input from the backbone of the country, the middle class? Most people refer to themselves as part of the middle class. There are some who feel they are part of the middle class, but with the difficulties of the last years we find there are more people joining the ranks of the less fortunate, to say the least. The government claims to be very sensitive to the concerns of the middle class, which is obviously the backbone of the country and very essential in the democratic process. But, if that fundamental sector of our society is no longer effective, or that the input has been reduced to the point that it is no longer significant, the question is: Where is this whole philosophy we have in the country for many years which distinguishes us from many countries, that we want to be our brother's keeper? Although most members of the House belong to the middle class, we would have to say that our input is decreasing year by year.
For the last I do not know how many years, we have had unbelievable deficits in the country. We have this government that came into power more than five years ago which was going to solve the whole problem of the deficit. Obviously we have seen the results. It more than doubled it over the past years.
Nevertheless, government members claimed that they had the solution to reduce it. Time is running out for

April 2, 1990
Government Orders
them and they have begun to realize it. What emerges on the scene is a totally new form of taxation, the GST. Obviously, they did not tell the electorate before the election of 1988.
I would not want to repeat it here as it is obvious that we know what Canadians think of the GST. I see the hon. minister responsible for tourism. I get floods of mail every week telling me that the GST is going to be disastrous for the tourist industry in the country. That is only one of the victims on the horizon and obviously we are going to hear more from these people in the future.

Madam Speaker, governments have priorities. The issues most often raised by this government lately include the environment, sustainable development, deficit reduction-which is why they came up with the GST-and finally research and development.
The other day on television, I saw a scientist, whose name I forget, who is a member of the association for the advancement of research in Canada. He was explaining that our country's future was based on research and development. And since Canadians' education level is higher than the global average, our future definitely depends on R & D. However, the amounts allocated to research and development are getting smaller with each budget. If we compare our Gross National Product with that of countries such as Japan, the United States and even France, we see that we are not doing enough. And it is disturbing since we live in a world where innovations, inventions and technologies are introduced at an increasingly rapid pace. We must remain at the leading edge of progress.
I remember the National Research Council's previous director, Dr. Larkin Kerwin, a former dean of Laval University. He tried for a few years to demonstrate that Canada's future well-being lay in the field of research and development.
I am obviously not an expert in this area but there are so many articles and books on technological development that we cannot help but realize that R & D will be the backbone of our country's economic health in the years to come. However, very little money is being spent on research and development.
Of course, the Liberal Party of Canada went through difficult years because the recession forced us to practice deficit financing, but we have had time to think the situation over and in retrospect we now realize we can come up with programs that definitely will save the nation from the impending recession.
So, essentially, Madam Speaker, when the middle class have fewer opportunities to influence government decisions, economic stagnation is here to stay. If we choose to leave the interests of all Canadians in the hands of pressure groups, don't expect miracles. A simple look at the tax system that has been around these last 20 years, shows that increasingly the middle class have been forced to pay more than their fair share. You don't have to be an economist to realize that reform is needed in that area. I believe the introduction of the GST especially, which has brought more Canadians under the same cause than anything else over these last few years, will inevitably force us to launch an in-depth reform of our tax system, and this will be the beginning of a new era in Canada where the economic system will reflect the aspirations of all Canadians.

[English)


EXCISE TAX ACT
Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, I wish to indicate on a point of order that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) and 78(2) with respect to the allocation of time to the report stage and third reading of Bill C-62, an act to amend the Excise Thx Act, the Criminal Code, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Excise Act, the Income Tax Act, the Statistics Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice of my intention to move a time allocation motion at the next sitting of the House for the purpose of allowing a specified number of days, or a day, for the consideration and disposal of both stages of the said bill.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, we have just seen another example of the
April 2, 1990

government's absolute obsession with imposing upon the House a continuous gag of closure, of time allocation.
I submit, Madam Speaker, that that notice just given to you is completely out of order. Debate on report stage has not even started. You can hardly talk about time allocation when the government has not even called Bill C-62.
I submit that that is the utmost of incompetence. I reserve the right to make comments at the appropriate time when the bill does come before the House. I also submit that at this time that notice is completely unacceptable, irreceivable or whatever other word I could use to tell you, Madam Speaker, that it is out of order.


BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1990-91 MESURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke-Centre): That Bill C-65, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Jean-Guy Hudon: Madam Speaker, I would like to make two points on matters that were raised. First, I would like to comment on a matter raised earlier by the hon. member for Saint-Boniface when he suggested concerning the debt, that revenues were increasing. I was not referring to revenues at all, I was referring to the percentage of federal expenditures that were going to debt servicing. Of course revenues will increase. But let us not confuse the issue. Of course revenues increase, but a larger proportion are going to debt servicing.
I heard my colleague say earlier in his comments: "You neglected the debt. It is increasing at an incredible rate". I agree. But if we look at the technical papers that were prepared along with the budget-you can believe it or not-but a debt keeps increasing if you don't pay it off. And when we have 30, 40 or 20, 10 or even a single dollar's worth of deficit in a financial year, obviously we are not paying off our debt.
Madam Speaker, I think Canadians should understand-I think they understand, but I get the impression
Government Orders
that the economists opposite don't understand-that when we took over, we inherited a debt of 200 billion. Obviously we haven't paid off a cent, because every year, we have a deficit although it is declining annually.
When you don't pay off a debt, the interest piles up. The interest alone on those $200 billion will have added up to $150 billion in 1990? Meanwhile, the debt keeps piling up. It doesn't need us to increase. We have done our share by bringing the deficit up to 30 billion. However, we are no longer adding to the deficit because we now have a balanced budget. And so the debt will stop piling up.
We have a balanced budget that will meet the demands of our regular expenditures. All we have to do is find a way in our Budget to pay for your expenditures which in the course of time have accumulated to reach the sum of $350 billion.


Ron J. Duhamel: Tell us about the last four years.


Mr. Champagne (Champlain):: We reduced your debt.


Ron J. Duhamel: Not true!


Michel Champagne: You don't understanding a thing!


Ron J. Duhamel: Look who's talking!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure the hon. member for Gatineau-La Lievre would like to make a few comments.


Mark Joseph Assad: The hon. member is spouting figures right and left, and here are a few figures that give a very clear picture of how you operate.
Compared with 1984-85, income tax, for all practical purposes, has increased by more than 3 per cent.


An Hon. Member:: Personal income tax!


Mark Joseph Assad: That, while corporate taxes have gone down. It seems to me it is pretty clear how you intend to finance this country's debt!


Michel Champagne: I would like to ask my colleague a question, because he raises the subject of companies that pay less tax than they should.
Is it not true that in 1984, when the Conservative government took power, there were tax loopholes whereby individuals could buy boats outside the country, for example, or 200,000 Canadian companies paid no

Government Orders
income tax? We have cut down those loopholes very significantly, so as to restore a much better balance.
Madam Speaker, it cannot be said today, as in 1984, that many Canadian companies pay no income tax, because if you compare the Conservative and Liberal records, if I may be a little bit partisan, you realize that far fewer companies can escape taxation with the system that now exists.
Secondly, for my colleague from Manitoba who does not seem to understand, the federal government's budget now shows a surplus of revenue over expenditures- we are not talking about the debt, but about the difference between income and outgo. Compare that to 1984, when we inherited a $ 16-billion deficit. In addition to paying the debt, we had to borrow to pay for the Liberals' programs, because they spent more than they took in.
Now, Madam Speaker, it is completely different. We take in more than we spend and that is sound management. It will enable us in the short term to balance the budget and thus bring total spending under control. We have done more than our share for this cause, Madam Speaker.


Mark Joseph Assad: I am quite tempted to challenge my hon. friend opposite. In absolute figures, you will see that, expressed in dollars-because it is the money that counts-the loopholes were greater and more numerous during your first four years in power then they had been previously.
Check the absolute figures.


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Madam Speaker, I wish simply to ask my hon. friend to comment on the impact the GST is likely to have on the tourist industry. I believe he is the Liberal party critic in this area and I wish to congratulate him on his speech. I should like him to comment on the GST and its impact on the tourist industry.


Mark Joseph Assad: As I said earlier, Madam Speaker, I have received a great many letters from companies in the United States which organize package tours indicating that because of the
GST, there will be a lot fewer organized trips to this country generally, and Quebec especially, because most tourists come from the Northeastern part of the United States.
Since the hon. Minister of State (Small businesses and Tourism) is here today and has probably received quite a number of similar letters, I wish to let him know that the companies are asking him at least to allow them to claim the full reimbursement of the GST. It is one of the suggestions, but if this cannot be done, the American companies which are bringing thousands of tourists to Canada generally and especially the Province of Quebec will see their business reduced by as much as between 10 and 20 per cent. That is one of the comments concerning the danger of the GST. All the organizations who are dealing with tourism in Canada realize that the number of tourists in this country will go down because of the GST.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I would like to compliment my hon. colleague on his reasoned approach to this debate. We all know of his long years of studying tax reform.
I think that one of the reasons we are losing our competitive edge in this country is that there is a general feeling the current system is not treating people fairly.
The member talked about tax reform in his speech. Would he expand a little on the extent to which we need to go through comprehensive reform in order to get a competitive feeling and a sense of fairness in our economy so we can generate more dollars to help reduce this deficit?


Mark Joseph Assad: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. This is a subject which can go on and on.
In public life we often mention that not only does a government have to be considered above board and honest, but it must give the perception of being so.
If anything in a democracy should be fair and equitable, it is the tax system. Do Canadian people perceive the tax system as being fair and equitable? Far from it. We see more and more Canadians coming to grips with the fact that the whole system is completely out of kilter.

Of course there is no magic formula. The hon. member came up with a single tax into which people have looked, and all we have to do is go back and take some inspiration from the Carter commission.
I met a professor from the University of Ottawa the other day who told me that we could be inspired because the principles are basic and can be used to transform and bring back a tax system which is fair and equitable.
I want hon. members to realize today that I do not blame them. The problem has increased over the last 20 years and no political party can be blamed. The fact of the matter is that we need a total reform.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, the government recognizes the seriousness of the large and growing public debt. Since 1984 it has taken action to bring the debt problem under control. The record shows that significant progress has been made. The government has been significantly restrained. Waste and inefficiency in government operations have been greatly reduced. The government has taken comprehensive action to close tax loopholes, reduce tax expenditures, reform the income tax system and, with the proposed sales tax reform, move to a secure and fair sales tax base.
As a result of these expenditure actions and revenue measures, the deficit in 1989-1990 has declined by almost $8 billion from its peak in 1984-85 of $38.3 billion. This represents a reduction of 45 per cent in the deficit to the Gross Domestic Product ratio. In other words, while the debt itself is increasing, the ratio of the Gross Domestic Product of this country to the deficit is shrinking. It has done so in the past five years by some 45 per cent.
The growth of the debt has slowed dramatically and is now roughly in line with the growth of the economy's output of goods and services. Behind these improvements in the government's deficit are even more significant changes in the ongoing structures of government spending and revenues.
The government now has a $9 billion operating surplus. The cost of government programs are more than completely financed by ongoing government revenues. This was not the case five years ago when program spending then exceeded some $16 billion. In other words, five years ago for the government to implement
Government Orders
the programs it provided for Canadian people, it borrowed some $16 billion on an annual basis.
What we have today is an $8 billion surplus in that regard and that is money that can be used for diminishing the debt. As time goes on and that surplus grows-it has the potential to grow to some $30 to $33 billion over the next four years-the capacity of the government to shrink that debt will be ever increasing.
The government acted to convert the $16 billion operating deficit to a $9 billion operating surplus, a turnaround of some $25 billion in just five years. Relative to the Gross Domestic Product, 70 per cent of this improvement in the operating balance has been achieved by expenditure restraints brought about by the present government. Although substantial progress has been made, the task is certainly not yet complete.
The enormous build up of debt over the last 20 years means that we are on a treadmill dominated by growth in public debt and debt servicing. With an annual deficit of some $30 billion, interest costs increase by $3 billion each year just to service that debt. This means the operating surplus has improved by $3 billion each year just to keep the over-all deficit from rising. This problem is compounded by the vulnerability of the government's fiscal situation to increases in interest rates.
Exposure to interest rate developments was dramatically illustrated in late 1988 and through 1989. With the economy at capacity and inflation pressures mounting, higher than anticipated interest rates added about $6.5 billion to public debt charges in 1989-90, relative to the fiscal framework projected in the February 1988 budget.
In response, the April 1989 budget introduced substantial expenditure reductions and revenue measures. With the action in that budget, the government was able to set out a fiscal framework designed to deal with Canada's fiscal problem.
Since April 1989 inflation pressures have proved to be more strongly entrenched than expected. This has resulted in interest rates remaining higher than expected. Further fiscal action has been necessary to hold the fiscal framework set out in the April 1989 budget.

April 2, 1990
Government Orders
The substantial expenditure actions in the February 1990 budget together with measures announced by the President of the Treasury Board in December reinforce the momentum of earlier measures. They ensure the goals of the April 1989 budget will be reached. What could only be aimed at in the medium term five years ago is increasingly within reach today.
The deficit will be cut by more than half to $14 billion in 1993-1994. The following year it is predicted to fall to $10 billion or about 1 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product, the lowest level in 25 years. Financial requirements will be in surplus by 1994-1995, allowing the government to begin paying back the debt it previously borrowed on capital markets. The burden of the debt will be falling. The debt to Gross Domestic Product ratio stabilizes in 1991-1992 and declines thereafter, the first decline since 1974-75.
In short, the fiscal environment required for sustained, non-inflationary, economic growth will be firmly in place.
I would like to speak to members of the opposition parties for a few moments, Madam Speaker, if I might. During the course of this debate in this Parliament and the previous Parliament they had a tendency to blame the Government of Canada for a debt situation for which they must bear the greatest burden for it being there in the first place. While recognizing the seriousness of the debt, they have been the same persons who have blindly criticized every cut the Government of Canada has made. They are the very same members of Parliament who have advocated that every imaginable, worth-while project for this country be put in place.
You cannot legitimately face the Canadian people and argue both dimensions of that argument. You cannot make claims as to the seriousness of the debt and that the deficit must come down, while at the same time argue that every worth-while program should be funded to its optimum. It would be nice if there were such a magic solution, if all Canadians in their businesses, families, homes, or in the operation of government could sit and think of what is good, nice, enjoyable and would bring pleasure and security, and then irrespective of the cost put forward some scheme that we spend that amount of money.
There is an isolation of two groups of people in Canada: the NDP and the Liberals. Tliey are the only ones who have the luxury of being able to advocate the wonderfulness of expending on everything, while never having to bear the responsibility for its payment. They also have the luxury of coming before Parliament when there is a borrowing authority bill before it to criticize the debt and say it should not be there, when it is that very debt itself which has over a period of two Parliaments and beyond, through a history of Liberal governments, has been the very structural reason for this problem in the first place. Canadians are not blind to the fact that this problem arises because of a history of irresponsibility toward the financial management of our country. This situation is somewhat analogous to turning the Queen Mary around in the Battle River.
We have a significant problem that has momentum. Short of cancelling 12 government departments, there is no fast turnaround except to work our way out of this problem. The primary engine of doing so, though it will require some increase in revenues and curtailing of expenditures which we have done, the prime opportunity for Canada to work its way out of this is by economic expansion. Because we have had an average 20 per cent economic growth over a period of some five years, we are now put into a situation where the debt vis-a-vis the question of the Gross Domestic Product has actually fallen by 45 per cent.
It is because of the growth and intention for continued growth, as well as trade policies and structured tax policies that we are bringing into place, that this country can now see the light at the end of the tunnel. We are on track, and what we need now is the stability to carry this program to its logical conclusion so that Canadians in all parts of the country can rid themselves of the debt given to us by previous governments and reinforced by the New Democratic Party who loves to spend.
The size of the New Democratic Party gives it the luxury to imagine all those nice things and advocate that it would do them if it were in government. At the same time it has the privilege of being able to say that the debt is too high and should be cut without ever offering an option of how it can spend more and cut the debt faster. It is something that can only exist in the mind of an opposition party member.
April 2, 1990


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the previous speaker's argument for a restructuring of the tax system. I do not think there is any doubt that that is necessary.
I know, having just returned from my riding, that the opposition to the goods and services tax initiative is very widespread. No amount of beating the drum about concern for the deficit will bring about support for that initiative. Small business operators in my constituency are outraged that this is the way the government is trying to address the deficit concern. I was able to tell them- and perhaps the hon. member would like to comment- that program funding has been less than government expenditure over the last two years.
The real problem is interest rates and relates to this government's mismanagement of the fiscal house of this country. The government should have the courage to talk about the interest rate policy and to address the outrage, the obscenity of high interest rates and how they are affecting the small business community in my constituency and elsewhere. It is the small business operation that creates jobs in our country. It is the small business operator that creates wealth.
How does the hon. member respond to the analysis that high interest rates are making the debt grow rather than program financing?


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, I concur with the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands when she recognizes, as do most of us in this House, that small business is the engine of our society and will certainly make Canada grow, both in terms of the amount of generation of wealth for the country and in terms of the number of persons employed. It is not the large business sector which does that.
However, I do want to respond to two parts of her question. First, the GST. I strongly support the goods and services tax because I believe that it is a far more fair method of taxation than the present manufacturers' sales tax.
I would like to give the hon. member an example from an area very near me of a person who builds luxury motor homes. He buys the frame and the engine and pays the manufacturers' sales taxes on it under today's
Government Orders
system. He buys the shell of a motor home, pays the manufacturer's sales tax and installs it. He buys the carpet, the cabinetry, the television set, the telephone, the radios, the couches, the swivel chairs, the tables, and virtually everything else that goes into it, and on every item pays a manufacturer's sales tax. The person adds up all of those costs, puts on his portion of profit and then, because he is deemed to have remanufactured, now must add on a manufacturer's sales tax.
Can the hon. member tell me how that helps Canadian small business persons in a competitive world? Does that not mean that more manufactured products are going to be made in the United States? Is it not the reason why we are trying to get from under the flood of imported products coming into our country by changing a high tax at the manufacturing level that cascades through to all of those various levels from there on, through transportation, through wholesale to retail. It increases the tax and then arrives for the people of Canada to pay in a hidden way. It limits our capacity to export and increases the potential for import products. I ask the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands to defend that to the small business person as an appropriate way of doing business.
The hon. member also made a comment about interest rates. Let us take a look at the question of interest rates. We have, in this country, this year a living example of what happens with interest rates. It would be very nice to be able to flick our fingers and phone up the Governor of the Bank of Canada and say: "Lower the interest rates" by some percentage, 1 per cent, four per cent, 10 per cent, or whatever the NDP would choose as a nice number. The NDP might like to have no interest rates, no cost on capital at all.
However, the NDP should bear in mind that the Governor of the Bank of Canada tried that once already this year. He lowered the rate by a quarter of a per cent and within a week the run on the dollar was unbelievable. It cost this country a couple of billion dollars to shore up the dollar because of the run on the dollar. What is the situation with members of the NDP? They ignore that incident that took place within the last 60 days. They do not bear in mind some response to the extent to which Canada is beyond its capacity to pay. It is not only the federal government that is borrowing, but provincial governments, municipal governments, plus Canadians themselves.

April 2, 1990
Government Orders
We are one of the biggest debtor nations, on a per capita basis, anywhere in the world. Canadians go out and borrow. In 1988 we had one of the most extensive high borrowing years we have ever had in our history. That was all Canadians, not just governments. In 1989, it was 27 per cent higher than in 1988, which was a record year.
What would the hon. member do in the face of that? She would lower interest rates, which would mean that the borrowing would go on until we became like Argentina and Brazil, until we have inflation rates like they have of 100 per cent, 300 per cent and 500 per cent. Then let her go home to her small business people and say that's good for them. Let her go to the senior citizens and say that's good for them. "You people here on fixed incomes, that is just good for you, because it does not matter that we have inflation rates of several hundred per cent. We have low interest rates."
That might be all right for the member for Saanich- Gulf Islands. I think that is a very cruel and inappropriate way to put forward a financial policy for the Government of Canada, where there are so many people on fixed incomes, the indigent, the elderly, those who do not have the capacity to take advantage of inflationary factors and have the opportunity to put them in a position that she would advocate for them. I would resist such a policy.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I rise today with some trepidation, having listened to my hon. friend from Alberta. I was worried before I got up, now I am almost in a panic because of what he said. I feel exactly the opposite. Let me clear the air before I even begin my commentary by replying to the hon. member's suggestion that we do not have any alternatives as New Democrats as to how to raise additional revenues. I will tell the hon. member the following.
I did not hear him in his speech today say that we Conservatives like the idea of corporations not paying income tax. I did not hear him say that there were 69,000 profitable corporations in this country not paying any income tax at all. I did not hear him say that in the last year while personal taxes went up for Canadians by 16 per cent, corporate taxes went up only by 9 per cent, to say nothing about the additional excise taxes that people have to pay.
I did not hear him say that perhaps it is time for Canada to join the rest of the world with some kind of a wealth tax. We are one of the few countries in the entire western world that does not have some kind of wealth tax so that when you inherit $10 million, you should pay some tax. I did not hear anything about that. No.
All I heard was that he believes we should put the GST into place so that no matter how regressive, cruel and brutal it is on people, they should pay more because they are not going to touch the corporations.
Canadians are asking why Brascan, with profits in excess of $200 million last year, paid not a penny in income tax, when people working for a living in Red Deer, Lethbridge or High River will have to pay as much as $2,000 extra because of the goods and services tax. Why does he not explain that?
I have this very uncanny feeling that the government is softening us up for the big blow, a poll tax. They are looking at Margaret Thatcher and they are saying that Margaret Thatcher jammed this goods and services tax in and now the next one is to put a poll tax on. I read the reports from the Fraser Institute, which is the bible for the Conservative Party of Canada. They are advocating a poll tax for Canada. They are saying that every single Canadian, regardless of their level of income or where they live should be paying a poll tax, just like the old Chinese head tax of years ago which we abhor in principle.
That is what is coming, just as sure as we are standing here. That will be in next year's budget, I suppose. Because if there is some way to move the financial responsibility of providing for Canada from the wealthy, the privileged and the large corporations down on to the backs of working people, that is what this government wants to do and a poll tax is an excellent way to do that. Look at Margaret Thatcher. There is a rebellion in the streets in London.
In Canada there is not a rebellion in the streets yet. But Canadians are just beginning now to realize that to stop the goods and services tax, they do not have to defeat the Tory government. All that is necessary is a handful of Conservative back-benchers who have the guts and gumption to represent their constituents in this House and vote against the goods and services tax like their constituents are asking them to do.
April 2, 1990

My hon. friend from Alberta would have to look under a lot of rocks out there to find people who support this goods and services tax. The Conservative back-benchers are all decent individuals, but something happens when they get together in here. They lose any sense, compassion, thoughtfulness and caring. They listen to the Minister of Finance from Bay Street where everybody is doing fine. They have large incomes, the lobbyists have large incomes, and he is surrounded by public servants whose incomes are in excess of $100,000 a year. They are all comfortable. Everybody is working. Their spouses are all doing well. He never gets out to meet normal people. I do not know if the Minister of Finance knows any normal person.
However, let me tell my hon. friend from Alberta about an experience that I had only two weeks ago. I went up the North Thompson River and stopped in at a ranch. I was surprised to see a "For Sale" sign on the gate. Perhaps one of the saddest days of my life occurred that afternoon. This was a ranch well known to the area, third generation on the land. They had carved out of some pretty rugged country a profitable cattle operation.
I drove up to the ranch house, knocked on the door and was invited in. I looked into the faces of some of the saddest people I have ever seen. Here was the mother and the father working probably 18 hours a day, seven days a week, to try to keep that ranch going. They had three kids, one teenager and the others were perhaps around eight and ten. They were working after school. They would work all weekend month after month after month to try to keep this small cattle operation going.
They told me that because of the high interest rates of this government, they had to pay interest rates of 15 and 16 per cent. They said: "Nelson, you cannot keep an agricultural operation going with interest rates at 14, 15, 16 or higher per cent." As my hon. friend says, you cannot keep anything going at those rates.
Yet the rates keep going up. This past week we have reached a point where we have the highest rate since 1982. My Conservative friends opposite ought to be remembering what it was like around here in 1981 and 1982. They were on their high horses in here then. Something happens to Tory brains when they cross this
Government Orders
floor. I can remember day after day, ranting and raving and screaming at Allan MacEachen or Marc Lalonde, how horrible they were because the rates had gone up to 10 per cent, and then 11, 12 and 13 per cent. They are higher than that now.
What do I hear from the Conservative benches? I hear nothing, absolutely nothing, rather than that they support this high interest rate policy that is driving not only these ranch families into bankruptcy where they have lost not what they have put into it, but what their grandparents put into that land. They have lost three generations of work because of this government's high interest rate policy. It is a sad day.
We walked out to the farm gate. Here was a pretty rugged individual, and by the time our conversation finished, his eyes were bleary, nearly in tears, because of what he had to do. He could not provide for his family, in spite of working literally day and night for months. Not because of any inadequacy in management, not because of any problem in terms of their desire and willingness to work, but because of this government's high interest rate policy.
They sit there glumly and say: "Aren't we wonderful?". I cannot imagine a single Conservative being elected from the prairies next time. There is an abandonment of the prairies in terms of the farm community. Hundreds and hundreds of farms are for sale, or bankrupt. People are saying: "We are not going bankrupt, we are just walking out. We cannot meet our debt loads." What do we get from this government? It is laughable: a program to make it easier to leave your farm. That is what we get. Not a debt moratorium. No, nothing like that. Not any serious effort at debt restructuring, but a program to get out of agriculture and turn it all over to agri-business. That is the goal now. It is an abandonment of the family farm, the family ranch in this country. It is a very serious situation.
Two Friday's ago, my hon. friend, the member for Mission-Coquitlam, had before this House a private members' initiative for a bill of rights for children. Over the last number of weeks she put together with others a very thoughtful presentation that there are many signs in our country that perhaps people do not respect children. We just saw it today in the news. A family was being evicted because of the nuisance of a child crying.

April 2, 1990
Government Orders
We see massive cut-backs in social housing, where this could not occur. The saddest day for many of us was when the motion came to establish a child's bill of rights, where we would recognize that young children in our country have some rights. Granted, our colleagues and friends, the Liberals voted in favour of this. As a block, the New Democrats voted in favour of it. It was a private members' day. We voted row by row because individuals were supposed to be counted. But no, the Conservative government laid on a whip and said: "Every Tory member in this place must vote against a children's bill of rights."
Can you imagine what kind of a signal that sends to this country, Madam Speaker? The government could have supported and ignored the legislation, but they voted against it. They stood in their places, dozens and dozens of Conservative members voting against Canada establishing a children's bill of rights. No wonder the people of this country are becoming cynical with this government.
Why would we be surprised? In the budget presentation the Conservative members got on their feet and were applauding when the Minister of Finance said: "Do you know how we are going to save money? We are going to cut back and make veterans who are lying sick in hospitals pay more for their room and board". How low and mean and nasty can you get? The conservatives clapped and applauded that initiative to hit the veterans. Of all the people in this country, those who are lying in a hospital bed are told that they have to pay more now.
That is only the beginning. Without any hesitation, we can afford spending $40 million a day on our defence, but we cannot afford women's shelters. We have to close them down. We asked the Minister responsible for the Status of Women whether she would intervene. No, she thinks this is a good idea. We cannot afford women's shelters across this country. What kind of a country are we coming to?
When people come to Canada, becoming a Canadian citizen means certain things. For example, it means you can have a pension when you retire. But this government has just changed the rules. They said that only some people can now qualify for pensions. If you have worked your life and have set aside money and have prepared yourself for your retirement years so you have some income, you are not going to get a Canada Pension. If you can prove that you have a certain income, you do not get Canada Pension any more. A fundamental principle of what it means to be a Canadian is that when you retire after contributing to the development of the greatest
country in the world, you are entitled to Canada Pension. But this government says: "No you are not".
Another element of our citizenship is something we call family allowance for every child, whether they are from western Canada or eastern Canada, whether they live in Quebec or Manitoba, whether they are wealthy or poor, francophone or anglophone. The government is now saying that no, not everybody in this country gets family allowance any more. So, thousands and thousands of families who would normally be eligible for family allowance, are no longer eligible. It is the Conservative view of the world.
That is just the beginning. Do we not recall the promises and promises of a few years ago that we would have a child care program in this country. We are one of the few western countries now that does not have a comprehensive child care program. And do we have that? Nary a word. No child care.
The other day we saw cuts to post-secondary education. The increases that would normally be going to develop Canada's most valuable resource, our young people, will be capped. Then a fee is going to be added, so a student in need of a loan will be charged a user fee now. A student may say: " that is okay, because normally I go and work in a Challenge '90 program in the summer. I will use one of the federal government's SEED programs so at least I will have a summer job and I will save and scrimp for my education." The government says: "Hold it. That is off now." There have been massive cuts to that.
The government does not want to support young people preparing for their education. "We do not want to make it easy to get a student loan. We are going to establish a user fee. We do not want to continue to invest, as we have, in colleges, vocational schools, universities and technical colleges." What kind of a government is this that is failing to recognize that our most important resource is not oil, codfish or coal. It is our young people, and they are being abandoned by this government.
Do you recall the day, Madam Speaker, when the minister responsible for native people thought he had a great idea. Rather than encourage native young people to go to university, college, vocational school or technical school to develop the necessary skills to enable native people to provide the necessary financial and social and economic infrastructure for their people, he limited again the opportunity for native young people for postsecondary educational opportunities. What kind of investment in the future is that?

Today, of course, we reminded ourselves of the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. The government thought that it was time that we took off hundreds of thousands of people off the unemployment insurance rolls. We should make it a lot more difficult for people to qualify so that people who live in Newfoundland would have a more difficult time qualifying and that we should take money from the unemployed, the people who need the money the most, to provide money for retraining. When hundreds of thousands of people are taken from the unemployment insurance support program in this country, what kind of signal does that send to people in the have not areas of Canada where regional development programs have been cut back?
My hon. friend from Prince George-Bulkley Valley for months and months has been asking the Minister of Forestry where are those forestry agreements. We know what we require to sustain one of the most important natural resources in this country. We need something like $1 billion over the next number of years to develop reforestation and silviculture to ensure that that resource stays in place for future generations. There is tremendous opportunity in employment.
Even setting aside the tens of thousands of jobs that could be generated, the fact is that we cannot keep cutting down trees and not replanting them, considering that our forest exports are our number one export commodity by far. Does this government look ahead and say that it is time that we invested in this critical resource. It is time that we provided for silviculture programs and reforestation and provided employment for literally tens of thousands of people. No, we must cut back.
I was going to talk about the small business sector because the Minister of State for Small Business was in the House a minute ago. We recognize that about 96 per cent of the new jobs in Canada will be created by the small business sector. What is it that we are doing to assist and encourage the small business sector? What
Government Orders
programs are in place to encourage and support small business in Canada? Have there been any new initiatives? No, there have not. Have there been any old initiatives? No, there are not. Only the GST is going to make it a logistical paperwork nightmare. My hon. friend says it is going to make small business persons bureaucrats and tax collectors. They are being asked to be federal government tax collectors now with no compensation whatsoever.
My hon. friend from Alberta talks a lot about the debt. When the Conservatives came into office in 1984 the national debt was $160 billion. One gets the impression that the Conservatives were actually worried about that and took steps to reduce it. Today the debt is $351.6 billion. That is virtually a doubling of the debt in their short period in office. This idea of blaming something that happened in this country years ago sounds like a worn-out record. People do not believe that the reason that the Conservatives have doubled the debt is because of the Liberals. Granted, there was a point there because of the corporate loopholes that the Liberal government brought in, particularly Mr. Thmer. It was possible for Brascan, Confederation Life, Xerox of Canada, and Power Corporation to pay no income tax last year. In fact, I could list 69,000 corporations. Why is it that my Conservative friends opposite do not explain why they feel to have 69,000 profitable corporations paying no tax at all is a good idea. I never hear them explaining that.
In conclusion, the government is stating that we must reduce the debt and the deficit, that we must impose a goods and services tax on the people of Canada, and yet keep in place a tax system so that Brascan, Confederation Life and Xerox Canada, just those three, with profits in excess of $400 million paid no income tax whatsoever. Does that not put it into perspective. This government says one thing to its corporate privileged friends and for the rest of Canada acts in a very big brother way and says: "We know what is best for you. In the end you will understand that increasing taxes like the goods and services tax so that each Canadian family will pay probably $2,000 more taxes next year is a good idea". No wonder that the people of Canada have become so

Government Orders
cynical and, as reflected in the polls, only 17 per cent of the people of Canada support this government and that is dropping.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, just a short question for my hon. friend. Is my hon. friend for or against the loss carried forward provisions in the Income Tax Act?


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is an interesting question: "Is my hon. friend for or against". We recognize, Madam Speaker, that from time to time and particularly on certain kinds of businesses that carried forward losses makes good planning.
But do we really need to help Brascan? Is Brascan in that kind of financial difficulty? Is Xerox Canada in that kind of difficulty?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: For or against?


Nelson Andrew Riis: My hon. friend asks me to be more precise. Let me be more precise. If you are a farmer, and I am thinking particularly of some of the farmers with large farms who would qualify in the corporate sector in places like southern Saskatchewan who have lost their crops because of drought, who have suffered real serious difficulties, yes carrying forward some of those losses makes sense.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Just farmers?


Nelson Andrew Riis: No, I am not saying just farmers. I am using that as an example. I say I cannot accept the notion that Power Corporation, Nova Corporation, General Motors, the Royal Bank of Canada and the Bank of Montreal some years pay no income tax whatsoever. That I cannot accept.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I think that sometimes the hon. member puts a light on businessmen in this country that does them a disservice. Being a former business person from downtown Toronto, I know hundreds of people who work on Bay Street and do the best they can to be good corporate citizens. They read the Income Tax Act as it is and take advantage of the legal preferences and options that they have to reduce their tax base. Of course, we have developed this tax loss over the years as instruments of creating employment.
I should tell my friend that not only small businessmen are opposed to the GST. I have not found very many large corporations which support the GST. I think it is
very important that we do not taint all big businessmen in this country as being for the GST because in fact they are not.
I have been working hard on some constructive alternative to this GST because we do have a deficit and debt problem for which all of us directly or indirectly have a responsibility. My question to him as a senior member of the New Democratic Party is, has he looked at one of the possible options called the single tax? I would be interested to hear his views on it and if he has any positive remarks or even his negative remarks as to how it could be improved so that we could constructively advance this debate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes, I have read the hon. member's book on the single tax and I think he makes a good point. I want to clarify one thing.
When I say that there are companies like the Bank of Montreal and the Royal Bank of Canada that in some years pay no income tax, that is not because they are doing anything wrong themselves. They are following the rules that the government provides for them. It is the government that is responsible for the fact that some of these large corporations pay no income tax. It has nothing to do with them. They are just following the rules that the government provides for them.
The point the hon. member makes that there are large companies that are not in support of the goods and services tax is a point that ought to be made. His book on the single tax as an alternative to the goods and services tax reminds me of the work we put into it as a political party, coming up with alternatives as well. I take him very seriously when he says that he felt an obligation to provide an alternative for consideration.
We too thought it was appropriate that if we are going to criticize the government's goods and services tax, we should provide an alternative. And we have. We submitted a paper as part of the finance committee and laid out in a very clear way a number of alternative steps that would generate the same amount of money for the national treasury as the goods and services tax.
His single tax has merit. I do not want to say more than that. However, it has serious problems in terms of being regressive in some ways, but that is not to say they could not be overcome as well by using refundable tax credits
April 2, 1990

and other tax mechanisms. I will at least give him credit for providing an alternative.
Could he respond to my question as to what he thinks about the New Democrats five major alternatives to the goods and services tax. We have provided alternatives. I do not remember any from the Liberals with the exception of the hon. member's text that he circulated some weeks ago.


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, it is not often that I express disappointment in a speech in the House, but I was disappointed because the speech of member of the New Democratic Party, on the whole, basically did two things. First, it outlined how he would like to have more spending when the debate before Parliament today is on the borrowing bill. That party wants to do more spending.
Second, I presume it is either tremendously out of character or it was an accident, but he gave a long list of unbelievable misstatements. I just want to set the record straight on a few of them. He says that members on the government side are not representing their constituents because they favour the goods and services tax. I want him to know that by and large my constituency is an agricultural farming constituency. One of the principles of the goods and services tax is to take the cost of taxation out of the cost of doing business. Therefore, farm input costs will decrease by 2 per cent. Those are the farmers we are serving. This is an advantage to them because the tax is removed from operating costs. The hon. member, by his position, defends more taxation for farm producers.
He stated that there have not been any initiatives for business development under the present government. Well, what is ACOA? What is the Atlantic opportunities company? What is the western diversification office? One thousand new projects have been started by the western diversification office.
Under the previous Liberal government, such an office would have been headquartered in Ottawa. It is not. It is headquartered in Edmonton with branch offices in Regina, Winnipeg, Vancouver and Ottawa. There is a very small one in Ottawa for the deputy minister and few very close staff. But 1,000 new projects have been developed.
Ask anyone who has any relationship at all to that organization. There are very favourable comments from those who have approached the western diversification
Government Orders
office. And I speak of that rather than ACOA because that is the one with which I am most familiar.
Yet the member stands in Parliament and says there are no initiatives and no old initiatives by this government when in fact 1,000 new projects have been started.
Then he talked about something which absolutely shell-shocked me, Madam Speaker. It is a trick of the NDP. He talks about a poll tax. Scare tactics. With respect to the goods and services tax, he knows we included in the economic statement of November 20, 1984, the first fall we were in office, a full statement of what we needed to do. We stated that getting rid of the manufacturers' sales tax was one of our objectives.
In subsequent statements and budgets we talked about the need to revise that tax. Throughout even the last election there was a stated indication-although I know it was overshadowed by the the free trade debate and the free trade issue-that we were going to change to a goods and services tax.
He cannot find one reference by any one of us in the government that we would ever bring in a poll tax. Yet he has the audacity to stand up in Parliament and scare Canadians. What a despicable thing for him to do. He says, without one shred of evidence or a bit of logic, but simply to scare people and to accuse members, that we are going to introduce something that we have no intention of doing. So I say to the hon. member, stand up and defend your credibility.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I must interrupt the hon. member. The time for questions and comments have expired. A short comment from the member for Kamloops.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, we are now facing the spectre of a goods and services tax. I find it quite astonishing that the hon. member says that his constituents support the goods and services tax.


Arnold John Malone: I didn't say that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I wonder if we could make a wager here in terms of our seats. I would challenge him when he says that the farm community of his constituency supports the goods and services tax and that they are going to be winners.
Why do we talk about the poll tax? I remember distinctly that we struggled in a federal election campaign not long ago. I cannot remember Conservative members across the country saying that if they were elected they would impose a 7 per cent or 9 per cent goods and services tax on the people of Canada. The hon. member for Mississauga South said it and he was

April 2, 1990
Government Orders
pooh-poohed by the Minister of Finance and the leader of the party, saying he was not speaking for the government.
In closing, I simply say that I look to the Conservative think tanks to see what ideas that they might come up with. When I see the Fraser Institute advocating a poll tax, and when I see cabinet ministers and the Social Credit government in British Columbia, good Conservative members, saying they believe that this is the route to go, I become very concerned.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate. The hon. member for Beauharois-Salaberiy.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Madam Speaker, I always wonder when taking part in and listening closely to debates in this House if hon. members are talking for an audience in the Gallery or on TV or just for the sake of having something afterword to stuff in their bulk mailings.
We hear all kinds of things. We hear for example that we will not be re-elected, we only have 17 per cent support. Well, as far as I can remember, Madam Speaker, in our first mandate I think we went down to 22, 23 per cent, I wont argue on one percentage-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You bought the election after that!


Jean-Guy Hudon: No. We even went down to something like 12 per cent in Quebec. The most important survey is done five minutes before the election. From 57 Conservative members in Quebec, we went to 62 Conservative members in Quebec.
When people are asked: Do you support the GST or not? This is tantamount to asking people: Are you for or against taxes? Of course people will say: "No, I oppose that". But when it comes down to understanding how the system will work, everything will become much more interesting. So referring to 17 per cent does not make much sense in my view.
And if hon. members from the NPD from time to time lecture on those horrible tax loopholes, how come, Madam Speaker, when came the time to vote on the flow-through shares, one of the largest tax loopholes ever in support of the mining industry-I am on complete agreement as to that-how come they supported it when we wanted to repeal it?


Michel Champagne: They even had an emergency debate on that.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Indeed, Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Champlain suggests they even had an emergency debate on that. They are not listening because they are referring to the children's Bill of Rights. The children's Bill of rights was not enacted last week, we already have trouble enough maintaining a consistent position right now on the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms and finding out what it implies. Before referring to a second charter, let us first implement the first one. And if they are so bright as to lecture us on the children's Bill of rights and develop a consistent position on it, Madam Speaker, why don't they develop a consistent and lasting position on Meech Lake? We can come up with new principles.
Same thing with the GST. So far I have given about 45 conferences on this tax without feeling any strong opposition to it except from groups that have not met with me. There is a case pending against the GST in the Beauhamois-Salaberiy riding. It is happening everywhere. They are using the bishop of Valleyfield's paper, which he is sending everywhere, to mobilize people against the GST. They have taken over every golden age club I have met with one after the other. It is obvious. We will not ask people what they think. I will not ask my relatives whether they are for or against taxes. Everybody is against taxes. But it is not what they want to do. They do not really want a debate on the GST. They only want a bunch of signatures they can slam down on the Member's desk three weeks later saying: "See, your people are dead set against the tax." When did you ever give me the chance to defend myself and explain this project? Never. But we will not talk about that. Inconsistencies are not hard to find. I am anxious to see my colleagues from the Liberal Party.
I remember a debate that took place in Quebec during a referendum, a famous speech by the then Prime Minister Trudeau who talked about a "yes" that meant "no" and a "no" that meant "yes". Vote for the party and we will repatriate the Constitution in an honourable manner. We are putting our heads on the line. They even talked about the economic spin-offs from the F-18 contract that night. Yes, Quebec would get everything. Then the Conservative government came to power and gave the F-18 maintenance contract to Canadair in Quebec. Yesterday, in Winnipeg, their future leader
April 2, 1990

according to the polls-because they apparently believe in polls-their future leader from Quebec said it was horrible that Winnipeg did not get the F-18 maintenance contract. What will he tell Quebecers in his last mandate?
It is easy enough to tell. I am only trying to show that if you spit in the air, it will soon hit you in the face. I can not wait to hear what he will have to say in Quebec about the F-18 maintenance contract. I am also anxious to see the New Democrats go to Quebec with their inconsistent position regarding Meech Lake, because our consistent position in the debate on the GST and the budget is defendable. I told them: " Do not bother asking people if they are for or against taxes. They are against. Do not ask a government if it would rather risk its neck by proposing nothing. It will not like that."
Two budgets ago, when we had the same grocery list as our colleagues opposite, I went to buy a pack of cigarettes in Valleyfield-maybe it is not a good example to use-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Smoking is bad for your health!


Jean-Guy Hudon: Smoking is indeed very bad for your health. A woman came up to me and said: "What a bunch of smart alecs you Conservatives are, raising taxes on cigarettes".


Jean-Robert Gauthier: And she was right.


Jean-Guy Hudon: I told her: "Yes, you're right. We are as unoriginal as our predecessors because we came up more or less with the same grocery list: gasoline, cigarettes and booze". And I added: "But the tax on cigarettes is the best you can dream of: when you don't want to pay it, you just don't smoke"!
We failed to explain clearly that the GST is a consumption tax. It stands to reason that low-income people consume less and spend less. Madam Speaker, the less we spend the lower the tax we pay. Members on the other side fail to point out that households earning $30,000 or less will be entitled to refunds because we want to help people whose family income falls within that range. The tax system stems from a cultural and
Government Orders
historical evolution which dates back to a good many years. Madam Speaker, do you know why the manufacturer's tax came into being 75 years ago? At the time it was one way to tax rich people because all the others made whatever they needed for themselves. The idea was to tax the rich. Someone asked: What do rich people do with their money? They buy manufactured goods. So, that is what we will tax. If I were prime minister of a Moslem country I would tax pigs and European clothing because they are banned by religion.
A government does the same thing. At the time they wanted to tax rich people and manufactured goods, but what do rich people do with their money these days, Madam Speaker? They do not buy more goods, they use services.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 6.45 p.m., pursuant to the order made Thursday, March 29, 1990 according to Standing Order 78, it is my duty to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading of the Bill presently before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. Hawkes:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I am wondering if the hon. member for Miramichi might reconsider his decision to vote. I think he came into the Chamber a bit late. He is an experienced member. In the best interests of the House, it might be best if he were to reconsider his decision.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Madam Speaker, when I came into the House my Whip was still standing. However, I am in your hands.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, technically all members of the House should hear the question before they vote. That is the only technicality that must be addressed.
If he or she heard the question, then he or she can vote. That is the only technical argument that one puts in relation to a vote.
Members must be seated before the vote starts so that there can be order in this place. I do not think there was any disorder caused by the hon. member for Miramichi. If he heard the question, then I cannot argue with him.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Madam Speaker, I did indeed hear the question put.
April 2, 1990


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 7.14
Government Orders
p.m., the House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.14 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 3,1990