1990-02-12

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, December 11, 1989, consideration of the motion of Mr. Althouse:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing measures to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act to include coverage for producers who feed their own grain to their livestock; and the amendment of Mr. Funk:
That the motion be amended by adding immediately after the words "Western Grain Stabilization Act" the following:
"and Agricultural Stabilization Act'.
["Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of all Canadians in regions outside of Ottawa who will not be treated equally when it comes to the availability of budget documents on February 20.\nThe Minister of Finance has indicated that budget documents will be available only in Ottawa on budget day and will be made available the following day across Canada. This is not fair or equitable treatment to all Canadians who require this information. Private individuals and small businesses will not be able to react with the same speed as large corporations that have a presence in Ottawa.\nI would like to point out to the Minister of Finance that last year's budget leak did not take place in Vancouver. It did not take place in Winnipeg. It did not take place in Montreal. It did not take place in Halifax. It took place in Ottawa.\nWhy is the Minister of Finance punishing people in other areas of Canada for his own lapse of security that took place in Ottawa?"]
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of the motion of my colleague, the hon. member for Mackenzie and the amendment of my colleague, the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River on the matter of making it possible for farmers to be covered under the Western Grain Stabilization Act or the Agricultural Stabilization Act for grain that they grew and fed to their own livestock, particularly cattle and hogs.
I have read in Hansard what members from all parties had to say during the debate. I must say that I found those who spoke, in the main from the government side, did all kinds of talking around the subject matter, but did not examine what it is that the agricultural industry wants and for what has been asking for a long time.
One must remind the House that the following support this kind of move: the Canadian Pork Council, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Ontario Cattlemen's Association, the chicken producers, the egg producers marketing board, milk marketing board, pork producers marketing board, sheep marketing agency, turkey producers, the three prairie wheat pools, and the UPA of the province of Quebec which is probably the largest farm organization in all of Canada, as well as many groups and individuals.
In March 1988, Mr. Kraft, a University of Manitoba economist, in his study on income stabilization and eligibility of farm-fed grain recommended that either the WGS or the red meat stabilization formula could accommodate farm-fed grain. The policy choices would be to change the grains programs to a production based qualification from the current marketing qualifications, or to modify the red meat stabilization formula to account for the costs of producing grain rather than just buying grain.
It makes no sense to allow the farmer full credit for the cost of the grain he purchased from a neighbour, feed grain dealer, or the Canadian Wheat Board. He is covered for the full cost of that, but he is not covered for the cost of grain he raises on his own farm and feeds to his hogs or cattle. That is something worse even than an anomaly. It would seem to me that that is totally unfair.
Let me quote from a letter from the Canadian Pork Council dated September 22, 1988, which states:
It is our view that grain should be treated no differently if it happens to be marketed through a livestock operation on the same farm rather than sold through commercial channels, which can include sales to other domestic livestock operations. All grain, whether immediately sold or fed to livestock, incurs the same basic costs. Growing grain and feeding hogs, for example, should be regarded as distinctly separate activities just as feeding hogs and feeding cattle within the same enterprise structure are treated as being unconnected for purposes of stabilization coverage for either of these two commodities.
The letter further states:

February 12, 1990
Private Members' Business
The Canadian Pork Council is advocating that immediate steps be
taken to correct this inequity, and to include farm-fed grain in all
current (which includes programs for the 1986-87 and the 1987-88
crops) and future grain stabilization programs.
In eastern Canada, grain produced and consumed on farms equals total sales off the farm and in western Canada it represents 20 per cent of all production. That is a lot of grain.
Excluding the farm-fed grain from qualifying under the Agricultural Stabilization Act or the Western Grain Stabilization Act, and not accounting for grain production costs in the red meat stabilization programs, has removed a portion of farm income derived from farm-fed grain from the farm income stabilization programs.
The policy choices to include the farm-fed component in stabilization are either to change the grain programs to a production based qualification from the marketing qualifications, or modify the red meat stabilization formula to account for the costs of producing grain rather than just buying feed grain. The policy change requires either the grains or the red meat stabilization programs be modified, but not both.
I know it was alleged that some cattle or hog producers would be collecting twice. We submit that it is done under one program or the other, but not both.
A production based grain stabilization program would require farmers to register the land producing each crop. The land must be assigned at productivity rating and stabilization payments would be triggered whenever the moving average support level of income was not attained.
Stabilization income levels would change from year to year because of crop prices and operation costs, but they would not be related to current crop yields or sales. Participants in a crop production based stabilization program would pay a premium when it was due. They would pay the premium when they were registering their land and their crop base.
Pay-out support levels would be dependent upon the premiums and contributions from government. All grain and oilseeds for which sufficient information on yields, prices and costs exist, should qualify for the production based programs.
Much of the information required for a crop production based stabilization program is currently used and processed by the provincial crop insurance corporations. Administration of crop production based stabilization programs would merely extend the responsibilities of the crop insurance administration rather than change the nature of their work.
In fact, I have long felt that the provincial crop insurance programs, and there are a few federal programs, should be integrated so that there would only be one administration cost. It would probably be a quicker and more efficient treatment of the producers who are supposed to benefit.
Incorporating grain production costs into the red meat stabilization formula could be accomplished by either having two formulae or one with a weighted average which recognizes the share of grain produced and fed on farms. The two-formula approach recognizes that some livestock operations purchase most of their feed requirements while others produce their own feed. The two-formula approach allows the participants to elect which procedure best represents their cost structure.
The motion of my hon. friend for Mackenzie corrects what I consider to be more than an anomaly. It is unfair. I would hope that all members, in the desire that we all have to do more about stabilizing and enlarging the income of our agricultural producers, would be anxious to pass this motion which only asks the government to "consider", and does not require the government to do anything. It gives them a sense of what the House of Commons feels, that they should consider what the motion of my hon. friend says, then the government could reply and report back to the House of Commons.
I hope that all members will support both the amendment and the motion submitted by the hon. member for Mackenzie.


Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to enter this debate. The issue which we are discussing is certainly an important one. Farm-fed grain plays a significant role in our agriculture economy. About half of Canada's cereal crops, with the exception of wheat, are fed to livestock. The promotion of farm-fed grains is even higher in the



February 12, 1990

maritimes. There, even when wheat is included, about 30 per cent of the crops are fed on farms.
Farmers across the country are concerned because the role which farm-fed grain plays in the agricultural economy is not acknowledged in stabilization programs. In some livestock support programs, the price of grain is included in the formula for triggering payments. Therefore, when grain prices go up, support prices for livestock go up.
Livestock support programs do not take the cost of producing farm-fed grain into account. If the price of grain stays the same but grain production costs increase, the high cost of growing grain is not reflected in payments through livestock support programs.
This is an important issue, but it cannot be considered in isolation. Right now, the federal government is undertaking an extensive review of all agricultural policies and programs in consultation with farm organizations and the provinces. The way that farm-fed grain is included in the farm safety net must be discussed in the broad context of that policy review.
At first glance, including farm-fed grain in the Western Grain Stabilization Act and the Agricultural Stabilization Act seems like a simple way to provide income protection for farmers who feed grain to their livestock. Let us take a closer look at the issue. Changing the Western Grain Stabilization Act and the Agricultural Stabilization Act to include farm-fed grain has a number of implications for both grain and livestock farmers.
First of all, some programs already include part of the costs of producing farm-fed grain. The dairy program is one example. If farm-fed grain were included in the Western Grain Stabilization Act and the Agricultural Stabilization Act, some farmers would be compensated twice for the same grain.
This was a point which the Standing Committee on Agriculture emphasized in its January, 1986 report on the Western Grain Stabilization Act. The committee concluded:
It should be only for the final products marketed that the producer receives market protection under the Western Grain Stabilization Act or the Agricultural Stabilization Act. In the case of livestock producers, they face the livestock market but not the grain market risk. Treating livestock producers as grain producers means the grain may be covered in the raw form and again as it goes into the final product.
Private Members' Business
That is what the committee stated. Beyond that, including farm-fed grain in the Western Grain Stabilization Act and the Agricultural Stabilization Act would mean changing the fundamental structure of these programs. Rather than being based on commercial sales, the Western Grain Stabilization Act and the Agricultural Stabilization Act would be based on production. If that were the case, the administration would have to collect yield data on every single farmer enrolled in the program. That would be a costly and impractical exercise.
In many cases, the information simply does not exist, so payments would have to be based on a regional yield average. Most farmers find this unacceptable. Farmers with yields below the regional average would be overpaid and those with higher yields would be underpaid.
Changing the basis on which payments are made could result in trading off the interests of one commodity group against the other.
Although including farm-fed grain in the Western Grain Stabilization Act and the Agricultural Stabilization Act would mean more protection for livestock farmers, it would remove the protection for grain farmers which these programs were designed to provide. Both the Western Grain Stabilization Act and the Agricultural Stabilization Act are designed to protect producers from a dramatic loss of income when they are unable to make sales.
For example, right now the Western Grain Stabilization Act is based on sales. If producers cannot make delivery, that is reflected in reduced sales and a Western Grain Stabilization Act payment can be triggered. If the Western Grain Stabilization Act and the Agricultural Stabilization Act were based on production, payments under both programs might not be triggered because of a drop in deliveries.
As a last point, including farm-fed grain in the Western Grain Stabilization Act and the Agricultural Stabilization Act would make both programs more expensive and farmers would end up footing the bill along with the federal government.
The way in which farm-fed grain is included in stabilization programs must be addressed through a comprehensive safety net program. At the national agri-food conference in December, the Minister of Agriculture announced that the National Grains Bureau

February 12, 1990
Private Members' Business
would lead the consultations with industry and the provinces on developing a grain safety net program.
The committee on grain safety nets had its first meeting in January and is expected to present a proposal for consideration by agricultural ministers in the spring. Legislation should be in place by the end of the year.
We need to develop a stabilization program which will do three things: first, it must respond to the needs of the producers; second, it must have a sound financial base; and finally, it must be based on a fair cost-sharing arrangement among farmers and provincial and federal governments.
Responding to the needs of farmers means putting a program in place in which farmers make long-term plans for their operations. In recent years, the federal government has responded to declines in farm income and production with ad hoc assistance. Farmers needed that assistance. However, relying on ad hoc programs makes it difficult for farmers to manage their operations effectively.
During the national agri-food policy conference, the Minister of Agriculture announced that a government-industry task force would be set up to look at several aspects of farm management. These include the special needs of beginning farmers, the management tools farmers need, the role of lending institutions, and the effectiveness of subsidized interest rates.
Over the next six months, options will be developed in consultation with industry. Federal and provincial ministers of agriculture will look at these options at their final meeting in August, 1990. Public consultations will start in the fall.
The issue of how farm-fed grain should be included in agricultural stabilization programs is an important one. It is an issue which must be considered in the context of over-all policy review. As part of the policy review, both levels of government and the industry are now in the process of developing options for grain safety net programs. The committee on grain safety nets held its first meeting in January and will be discussing several options with the industry over the winter. By late spring the committee is expected to have recommendations to be considered by ministers and legislation will be in place by the fall.
The way in which farm-fed grain is included in grain safety nets will be discussed in the context of the over-all safety net review. I have spoken briefly about the implications of adding farm-fed grain to existing grain stabilization programs. Simply adding farm-fed grain to the Western Grain Stabilization Act or the Agricultural Stabilization Act would likely create more inequities than it would solve. That is why the issue must be discussed in the context of the overall grain safety net review. I am confident that working with farmers and with the province we can arrive at a safety net program which will satisfy the needs of farmers and their livestock industry.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in this debate.
I listened with interest to the remarks of my colleague from across the way. He enumerated several problems that will occur the motion if the motion is adopted. Let me repeat that the motion asks the government to consider the advisability of introducing measures to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act to include coverage for producers who feed their grain to their livestock. The key word here is that the government should consider the advisability.
We are asking the government to study and recognize that a problem exists now. Producers of red meat products who grow their own feed and grain are in a disadvantaged position compared to those producers who purchase their feed. The system discriminates, perhaps unconsciously, against one type of producer compared to his neighbour.
Theoretically, there are ways around this. Neighbours could start selling the grains they grow to each other but I do not think we want to encourage any more games to be played. Often when I go into the rural area of my constituency farmers tell me that it is not enough to know the ins and outs of growing a crop. Now they have to become experts at the various government programs. These anomalies in the existing program and legislation are forcing farmers to become like high-priced tax accountants in order to learn how to play the system.
Our motion asks the government to first recognize the problem and then give some commitments to working with members of the House and members of the agricultural community to find ways and means by which we can
February 12, 1990

solve the problems that we are facing. In a nutshell, that is the purpose of the motion.
I appeal to members of the government to support our motion. It is not a motion that condemns the government in any way. I believe it is a motion that government members should have no difficulty supporting because it is presented in the spirit of trying to improve agriculture in this country and help our farmers. I hope that government members will see it as such and will support the motion.
Let me also say just a few words about the state of agriculture back home. During the Christmas break I visited many of the rural communities in my riding of Regina-Qu'Appelle.
I had the time to go into the local cafes, to sit in the booths, to drink gallons of coffee, and to talk with members of the farming community, people from the small towns I was visiting. I must say that I have never experienced such a psychological depression as what exists in rural Saskatchewan today. There is a sense of hopelessness, a sense of helplessness, a sense that nobody out there is listening to their concerns, let alone being able to do anything about it.
I find the type of fatalism that exists out there today extremely saddening. I talked with young farmers who were working land that had belonged to their family for generations. They have a sense of hopelessness and just shrugged their shoulders and said: "Well, Mr. de Jong, what can I do any more? We are totally in debt. We are totally uncertain as to what types of government programs and types of assistance there will be to keep us on the land".
I was shown old newspaper articles with the cost of wheat 10 or 20 years ago. In fact it is not much higher today and in many cases even lower. The cost of production in the last decade or two has soared. There is a sense that it is just not going to work any more. They wonder why they are out there struggling, trying to make ends meet, when they see no light at the end of the tunnel. This Parliament has must address those problems.
In conclusion, the farming community needs some help. It needs help from this Parliament. It needs some understanding and co-operation in developing policies of
Private Members' Business
mutual interest so that the farming community in this country will not go down the drain.
Accepting this resolution is a small but significant indication to our farmers that this Parliament is interested in their concerns and will rise above our partisan interests. The effort by my colleagues who have moved this motion is an effort of co-operation with the government to find a solution to this problem. I hope the government will accept it and, in doing so, will send out a signal to the farmers that this Parliament is willing to work together to find solutions to their problems.


Mr. Ken Monteith (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I pleased to speak to the motion this afternoon. We are all aware of the problems Canadian grain farmers face. The financial squeeze which began gripping farmers in the middle of the decade has not yet loosened. Export subsidy battles fought by others on the world grain markets have depressed the prices Canadian farmers get for their grain. Until there is some further progress made in the trade talks through the GATT, or unless there are production problems in major grain growing regions, the situation will remain uncertain.
In recent years dealing with problems brought on by low commodity prices has meant relying to a large extent on ad hoc government programs for support. In 1986 and 1987 the federal government provided farmers with a total of $2.1 billion through the Special Canadian Grains Program. In 1988 the Canadian Crop Drought Assistance Program paid out $850 million to farmers who suffered crop losses because of the severe drought.
We cannot continue to rely on ad hoc government assistance. There must be a better way in place to provide protection to grain and oilseed producers. This government has set out to find that better way. It began last year with changes to crop insurance plans. Coverage was increased in 1989. As a result of that increased coverage the revamped crop insurance programs in 1989 provided farmers with more coverage than in the previous year.
For example, the 1988 crop insurance payments for wheat on stubble in Saskatchewan ranged from about $32 to $53 an acre, depending on the risk area. In 1989, coverage for the same risk areas ranged from about $50 to $85 per acre.

February 12, 1990
Private Members' Business
In 1988, a southeastern Saskatchewan fanner, who grew a crop of wheat on summer fallow would have been eligible for about $60 an acre in crop insurance. On top of this, the same farmer would also have received about $14 an acre from the Canadian Crop Drought Assistance Program. The maximum coverage for that farmer would have been approximately $75 an acre.
After changes to crop insurance in 1989, that same farmer would have been eligible for about $94 an acre from crop insurance alone. Producers in Alberta and Manitoba were also eligible for more coverage through crop insurance alone in 1989 than they were able to collect from drought assistance and crop insurance in 1988.
The changes to crop insurance protection was a first step. Now this government is moving on the development of a national safety net program for all grain and oilseed producers. It seems inappropriate at this time to be tinkering with individual programs like the WGSA and the ASA. We have to look at this issue in a broader context.
At the National Agri-Food Policy Conference in Ottawa in December, it was agreed there is an urgent need to help develop a national safety net program that is fair to all grain and oilseed producers. Work on this issue is being undertaken as part of the federal government's national agricultural policy review. It was announced at the conference that the national grains bureau in Winnipeg would take the lead in working to develop a national grain safety net program.
This task will include the involvement of provincial governments and those industry representatives in developing a proposal. Meetings are under way this month. It is expected that a proposal should be ready by late spring with enabling legislation developed by December 1990.
The federal government is moving quickly on this issue. The farm income problems projected for the next year must be taken into account. There is also a need to ensure that action taken now is in line with the longer term goals as safety nets are developed for all farmers.
Part of the review, of course, is the examination of existing safety net programs. The advisory committee of the western grain stabilization program has been asked
to examine issues surrounding the potential transition of the WGSA to a more comprehensive safety net program.
This government is moving on the issue. In fact, progress has been made. The existing federal-provincial working group on safety nets is continuing the work it began in 1988. Its key objective is to develop a long term comprehensive safety net policy for all commodities and all farmers.
A series of regional meetings were held during 1988 among all farm leaders across Canada and government to help identify the problems which exist with existing safety net programs and determine the direction that would be taken for agriculture in the future.
Subsequently, the National Grains Bureau in Winnipeg developed a number of grain safety options which were presented to farm leaders. The work of the National Grains Bureau on safety nets is continuing. Continued discussion with farm leaders across Canada with other government members is continuing to work out a program for agriculture. As a government we are working out a comprehensive program which is fair to all producers across Canada. It will have a sound financial base for Canadian farmers which they require at this time.
This government has taken action and will continue to take action to ensure that agriculture is protected across this great land. We feel that it is appropriate for this government to continue to discuss with the farm leaders the future of agriculture, combining crop insurance and some safety net programs. We are continuing working with that to develop protection for producers.


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak briefly on the motion that is before us from the NDP. I would just like to make a few comments and explain to the House an experience that I had last Friday which I think is indicative of the situation that we have in the agriculture community at the present time.
Last Friday I took the opportunity to attend one of the largest, if not the largest, farm machinery equipment shows in Canada that takes place each year in February in Toronto. From my previous experience as an active farmer-producer I met many acquaintances there who were manning the booths for the dealerships that were there. They said that the attendance at the show was excellent. That was quite evident on Friday when I was there. However, they said that they found this year probably without question the worst year as far as
February 12, 1990

interest from producers is concerned. They were there to look.
On the lighter side, I can never forget my father saying that that was an excellent place to go once a year because you could see a lot of things that you could get along without. It is like going to a sportsman's show or whatever, and you could go home and appreciate what you did have at home.
They said it was very depressing that those farmer producers were simply not interested. They simply do not feel confident with the industry that they are involved in. They have seen many things happening. The interest free provision of the advance payment for crops removed. It was a management tool that they have used.
The basic improvements to the crop insurance bill are all well and good, but they are saying that because there has not been a tripartite type of program put in place with a three-way split on the premiums that the risks are going up and the premiums are going to be so high for that extra extent on the risk that they are probably not going to be able to afford it. They will be no better off than they were in the past.
There is a problem out there and I feel that this motion is a good one. It is simply asking the government to consider those improvements. I ask the members opposite to vote in the true spirit of this motion and not oppose it just because it came from a party on this side of the House. The motion seeks nothing specific. I can tell you from past experience that the way the stabilization act works now is not fair.
A farmer who produces his own grain for consumption by his own herd of cattle or hogs is not able to take part in the stabilization program because he has to subtract what he purchased from what he sold. There is no net benefit.
However, if a farmer is the sole producer of grain, he can take part in the stabilization program. If he is a purchaser of feeds, he cannot benefit from that. What I am saying is that whether I sell as a primary producer, whether I sell to the local grain elevator, my own grain enterprise in my farming operation, my hog enterprise or
Private Members' Business
my beef producing enterprise, a sale should be a sale no matter which way it goes.
At the present time the program is not fair. This motion requests that the government consider this and rather than take something away from producers, make an improvement to it. The producers are eager and willing to sit down with the government and make those suggestions.
The tripartite program is the type of program that can be protected and explained in other countries so that it is not challenged under the free trade agreement, as it has been, and we are going to have to work hard in order to do that.
In summary, I am requesting the government to vote in the spirit of this House and support this bill. The motion is asking the government to sit down and discuss this situation for the betterment of the industry which so many Canadians are involved in.


Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join this debate today on this important agricultural topic.
The issue of iftcluding farm-fed grain in stabilization programs is a very important one. It is an issue that cannot be considered in isolation. Including farm-fed grain in stabilization programs must be looked at in the broad context of all agricultural stabilization programs.
As you know, the federal government is undertaking a major review of all agricultural policies and programs. Any changes to the Western Grain Stabilization Program and the Agricultural Stabilization Program will be considered in the context of that review.
No farmer would want to make a decision about what he or she was going to plant on a quarter section without an understanding of the broader context of the future of that farm. I suggest that members of the House should keep that in mind. This government is looking at the over-all strategy and the whole Canadian farm sector before making a specific decision about one aspect of it.
The first step in the review process was the release of the discussion paper "Growing Together" last November 7. In that paper the federal government identified four pillars on which our vision for agriculture rests. They are market responsiveness, greater self-reliance in the agri-

February 12, 1990
Private Members' Business
food sector, a national policy which recognizes regional diversity and increased environmental sustainability.
The next step was the national agri-food policy conference in Ottawa in December. Over 1,800 people representing farmers, processors, consumers and other groups with a stake in the agricultural industry attended that conference.
During the policy conference a series of panel discussions on seven key issues were held. Now we are in the process of following up on those discussions. Task forces have been established in a number of areas, including market development and value-added, farm finance and management, safety nets, supply management, transportation, food safety and sustainable agriculture.
This is how farm safety nets fit into that over-all global picture. A federal-provincial working group on farm safety nets was in place before the policy review started last fall. That group will continue its work. Their objective is to develop a long-term comprehensive safety net program for all commodities and for all farmers. The group will prepare an interim report to be given to federal and provincial agricultural ministers at their annual meeting. In the fall of this year the group will consult with farm groups and other interested parties.
In addition to the working group on farm safety nets a special, committee has been established to look specifically at the question of grain safety nets. The committee was established after the policy conference in December. It has been set up because this government recognizes that grain and oilseeds farmers are likely to face some veiy serious income problems in the coming year.
We need to develop proposals to assist these farmers immediately. These proposals must fit within a national program framework. The Minister of Agriculture has asked the National Grains Bureau to lead the consultation with industry and with the provinces. That process is already under way. The committee had its first meeting in Winnipeg during the second week of January. That committee is expected to present a proposal to ministers for a grain safety net program by late spring. Proposed legislation should be submitted by the end of the year.
This is where the issue we are discussing today fits in. If we are going to make changes in the Western Grain Stabilization Act and the Agriculture Stabilization Act then we must consider these changes in the context of the review of grain safety nets and of all farm safety nets which is taking place now.
Including farm-fed grain and stabilization programs is a longstanding and significant issue for farmers all across the country. The cost of producing grain to feed livestock is not fully taken into account in livestock stabilization programs or in grain income stabilization programs.
The member for Regina-Qu'Appelle asked the government to consider specific changes to the WGSA and the ASA. Looking at the whole picture of agriculture, this government is considering adaptations necessary to face the future in all aspects of agriculture. Growing Together is not just a question of making speeches, it is a commitment to agriculture, a commitment to producers and a commitment to people in the agri-food sector to take action over the course of the next year or two.
We invite the opposition to participate in that process in a constructive manner. Simply including farm-fed grain in the WGSA and the ASA may not be the best answer. In fact, taking this step could create a whole new set of inequities and perhaps a return to the business of ad hoc government programs. We need to have a sense of the over-all context.
First of all, some stabilization programs such as the dairy program already include the cost of farm-fed grain. If these costs were included in WGSA and ASA some producers would be overcompensated. Second, including farm-fed grain in WGSA and ASA would make a fundamental change in the basis of these programs. Right now both of these programs are based on commercial sales. If farm-fed grain were included in both programs then these programs would have to be based on production rather than on sales. This would add a whole new dimension to the administration of these programs.
Members opposite might want to increase the administrative burden for farmers and the administrative cost to taxpayers. I can assure you that members on this side do not. If both programs were based on production, the administration would have to collect yield data for individual farmers. In many cases this information simply would not be available. Both WGSA and ASA would have to be administered on the basis of regional yields. I
February 12, 1990

do not have to remind members of the difficulties we ran into when we established the recent drought assistance program on that sort of basis.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(3) the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
It being two o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to S.O. 31.



Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday's release of Nelson Mandela was an occasion for world-wide rejoicing. Having spent 28 years in prison for leading South Africa's black national movement, Mr. Mandela personally became a symbol of the terrible injustices inherent in his country's white supremacy laws.
In South Africa, as in nations of eastern Europe, we have witnessed events in recent weeks that many felt could not occur in our lifetime. Much credit must go to President de Klerk who has demonstrated an enlightened outlook and the courage to accelerate change. Yesterday did not by any means mean the end of apartheid, but it was, we must hope and pray, the beginning toward the end of this abhorrent system.
Today we must encourage South Africa to continue this new and difficult course and do all we can to help that nation achieve a future in which every one of its people can participate.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and heartened to inform the House that this morning Parliament lit the way to a cleaner environment with Operation Super Bulb. Some 1,200 energy efficient light bulbs were presented to the Speaker by three
Canadian companies: Philips Electronics Ltd., General Electric Canada and Sylvania.
One bulb will be distributed to each member of Parliament and senator for use in his or her office and to 800 House of Commons employees for a home efficiency survey. These bulbs produce the same amount of light as an ordinary bulb but use only 20 per cent of the energy.
Reducing energy demand means less burning of fossil fuels and lower emissions of carbon dioxide, the main contributor to greenhouse gases and global warning. Each of these bulbs, so members will understand when they get one, over its lifetime can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to one tonne.
I hope this will be only a first step to Parliament and all government operations becoming leading lights in the preservation of the world's environment.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, the recent advisory council report to the Minister of the Environment says that the country is out of balance. The regions of Canada are being devastated by a wide range of government policies and programs, including cuts to regional development programs, cuts to provinces for health care, social welfare and education, cuts to the unemployment insurance program, cuts to VIA Rail, and the postponement of the Polar 8 contract.
Provinces like British Columbia get shortchanged on virtually every federal program that exists and it is quickly becoming a forgotten part of Canada. As a result of being abused and ignored by the government, a petition campaign is beginning to circulate in British Columbia to find out whether British Columbians wish to separate from the rest of Canada. The organizers say the high taxes of this government, coupled with its recent initiative on the 7 per cent goods and services tax, was the final straw.
Where is the federal government's leadership for nation building? When will the west and British Columbia in particular get their fair share? When will their views and concerns be recognized by this federal government? The government's cavalier attitude toward raising

February 12, 1990
taxes and cutting services to the regions only exacerbates the growing tensions and frustrations.
The budget provides an opportunity for this government to demonstrate compassion and understanding for all of Canada, for if next week's budget reflects past attitudes and behaviours, including ignoring British Columbia, I am afraid that the embers of western alienation and separation could be fanned into ignition.


MUSEUMS
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland -Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, the proposed fossil museum in Parrsboro, Nova Scotia will provide a showcase for displaying some of the world's oldest and most unique fossils found nearby on the shores of Parrsboro and Joggins.
Recent palaeontology finds have been described by the National Geographic Society as the biggest fossil find in North America and include over 100,000 pieces of bones of sharks, dinosaurs, lizards, crocodiles and insects, including one of the oldest fossilized insects ever found in the world. They are so plentiful that even I can find them.
Many of these rare fossils are now being trucked to the United States for examination, but when completed the museum will allow the research to be done on site in Nova Scotia. Not only will this museum serve the scientific community. It will be the foundation of a tourist industry in an area of high unemployment and few options.
The project requires participation from the municipality, the province, the private sector and the federal government. All are now firmly committed except for the federal government.
Although the Minister of Communications has given his complete support and assurance that funding will be made available, he will need the support of other ministers. I urge again that they all support this veiy genuine and much needed project.


POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, student aid in this country is in one terrible
mess and the problem is that the government has not been updating the criteria which determine the amount of living allowance students can claim and the amount that parents are expected to contribute.
Until 1984 the criteria were updated annually but have been frozen since then. As a result students are expected to live on the same amount in 1990 as they were in 1984-85. Parents are expected to make contributions based on today's income, but allowances and exemptions for income have not changed for six years.
This means that parents are expected to make substantially higher contributions to their children's education than they would if the policy prior to 1984-85 were still being followed. If the freeze continues this is going to get worse.
I am concerned that the time is fast coming when we will back to the old business of having to have a rich parent in order to get a university education, and we cannot allow that to happen.


FUR INDUSTRY
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, the fur industry plays a significant part in our Canadian economy. It is about a $1 billion industry that supports well over 100,000 Canadians, the majority of whom are in northern communities.
It was good to see this past weekend in nine cities across Canada hundreds of people, including over 300 in the city of Toronto, marching in support of this important industry. These Canadians were marching for the rights of trappers, ranchers, retailers and the public to enjoy our quality fur products and the economic activities generated from them.
I must agree with Mr. Del Haylock of the Fur Council of Canada when he stated that the industry had been a victim of misinformation by a small group of radicals. Judging by the numbers who made Canada Fur Appreciation Day a success, there are many Canadians who are fed up with the half-truths of the anti-fur campaign.
We can be proud of the Canadian fur industry and its humane trapping and ranching methods, methods that are the best in the world. Our Canadian fur product is indeed something to be boasted about.
February 12, 1990


NELSON MANDELA
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: He is free, Mr. Speaker. Nelson Mandela has walked out of a South African prison but remains a captive of a wicked regime. A gracious man to his jailers, Mandela called President de Klerk a man of courage, but was quick to add that "negotiations cannot take place above the heads or behind the backs of our people".
Nelson Mandela challenged President de Klerk to prepare the proper climate for negotiations between the white minority and the black majority. He called on de Klerk to lift the state of emergency in South Africa and for the release of all political prisoners.
Nelson Mandela also called on the international community to continue sanctions on South Africa. Nelson Mandela says he is prepared to die for the ideal of a democratic and a free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunity.
Apartheid has no future in South Africa. Amandla awatu.



Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, over the weekend my daughter called me from
1,000	miles away, both sobbing and laughing with the soulful joy that Mandela was free.
Yes, the whole world rejoiced, and none more deeply than the black people of South Africa for whom the struggle has been both long and brutal and for whom we must remind ourselves it is far from ended.
But my daughter's deeply emotional response reminds us of the wider meaning of the struggle in South Africa, that it is fundamentally a part of the continuum of the black struggle against the legacies of slavery, colonialism and racism of which all of us of African origin are a part. Nelson Mandela is therefore the bearer of the flame of black aspirations once borne by Martin Luther King that
one day the necessity of mutual love and equality for all humankind must order human affairs.
Canada's role in the struggle has been both noble and principled as have been the contributions of many. None, however, have sacrificed more than the South African people.
But let us not forget the critical role of black Americans. They brought focus to the issue of South Africa. It was they who forced sanctions upon an unwilling American administration that ultimately was so critical in bringing about the change that we have seen.
All of this, in turn, was made possible by the black struggle of which Mandela is now the leader.


RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, following a decision handed down on January 31, 1990, by the Canadian Transport Commission, CN will not be allowed to abandon operations on the Franquet-Chapais line in the Chapais subdivision. On March 12, 1986, at the request of Mr. Denis Lamarche, then president of the Senneterre Chamber of Commerce, we reacted strongly against CN's attitude to the Abitibi-Chapais area.
Special thanks go to Michel Champoux, Jacques Pelletier, Jacques Ruel and Daniel Morin from the Quebec Department of Transport, Florien Grenier of Sullivan, for the video, and all parties who testified at the hearings of the Canadian Transport Commission.
Today, I want to ask the people in Abitibi-Chapais and CN management in Montreal, Quebec City and Senneterre to get ready for the reopening of this section of the railway network.
Mr. Speaker, I dedicate this victory to CN employees in Abitibi-Chapais, to the wives and children of those employees and to one of our friends who died during the dispute with CN, our friend, Bob Langlois.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, the government has long been citing job creation statistics and boasting of its record. For a while Canadians accepted this rhetoric.
Well, they do not accept this government's rhetoric any more. A press release issued last week by the Ontario government clearly shows the reality of our economy today.
According to the provincial labour ministry, a total of 17,526 people were laid off in 1989. This is the highest number of workers laid off in one year since the recession of 1982.
It is also important to note that this total would be even higher if lay-offs involving fewer than 50 employees were included.
During the recession of 1982 there were partial closings and production slowdowns. In 1989 that was not the case. These jobs are gone and no doubt we will see more of the same in 1990. Canadians across this land can see, hear and feel the results of the government's gross mismanagement of our economy.


AUTO PACT
Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, this year marks the silver anniversary of the auto pact. This agreement between Canada and the United States has become crucial to the livelihood of many Canadians.
It is interesting to note that the auto pact was not immediately seen as a saviour of jobs in Canada. As was the case during the free trade debate, many well inten-tioned but pessimistic people denounced the auto pact as the beginning of the end of the Canadian automobile industry. Time has since proven, however, that the signing of this agreement was critical to the stability and growth that Ontario's economy has enjoyed over the last 25 years.
There are glaring similarities between the protests of 1965 and those during the election of 1988. Those who are afraid of progress, seemingly intimidated by the United States, claimed the auto pact would mean the end of the industry in Canada. Obviously Ontario's
economy has reaped huge benefits from the auto pact and will do likewise under the free trade agreement.


EL SALVADOR
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sadness and horror that I rise today to speak of a bombing raid by the Salvadoran air force on a refugee resettlement area. The bombing in Corral de Piedra resettlement site in the north of El Salvador left at least 20 injured and 6 people dead; 5 of those 6 were children. To add insult to injury, Salvadoran military infantry platoons walked into the village afterward and refused to help the injured.
These refugees lived for years in the Mesa Grande camp in southern Honduras where I assisted them to overcome the horrors of a terrifying flight from El Salvador. They were very recently guaranteed safety in returning to their homeland. Two weeks ago a Canadian fact finding mission went to El Salvador and the delegation was given assurances by the United Nations Human Rights Commission officials and Salvadoran government officials that these refugees would be safe.
The Canadian government must speak out. There is no excuse for the bombing of the civilians in this resettlement project, only callous disregard for the lives and the safety of innocent victims.
I implore this government to use every method, including our OAS and UN Security Council membership to guarantee the safety of refugees and resettlement projects and to bring about an immediate ceasefire and negotiated settlement in El Salvador.


OPEN SKIES CONFERENCE
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, throughout 1989 the world watched as the walls of communism and oppression broke down across eastern Europe. Now, in 1990, the world is watching the East and the West begin building a new foundation of freedom and prosperity.
Today in Ottawa an historic chapter in that process is unfolding. Representatives from 23 NATO and Warsaw Pact nations have gathered in Canada to negotiate a treaty which will permit unarmed surveillance flights over each other's territory. An open skies treaty will help
February 12, 1990

foster peaceful understanding and co-operation and lead to more stable relations between all nations.
Canadians can be proud of the role that our country is playing in helping to put an end to the cold war once and for all.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of all Canadians in regions outside of Ottawa who will not be treated equally when it comes to the availability of budget documents on February 20.
The Minister of Finance has indicated that budget documents will be available only in Ottawa on budget day and will be made available the following day across Canada. This is not fair or equitable treatment to all Canadians who require this information. Private individuals and small businesses will not be able to react with the same speed as large corporations that have a presence in Ottawa.
I would like to point out to the Minister of Finance that last year's budget leak did not take place in Vancouver. It did not take place in Winnipeg. It did not take place in Montreal. It did not take place in Halifax. It took place in Ottawa.
Why is the Minister of Finance punishing people in other areas of Canada for his own lapse of security that took place in Ottawa?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions for the Acting Prime Minister about certain recent international events. Like all Canadians, the members of our party are delighted with the release of Nelson Mandela and hope that this event marks the beginning of the end of the sad story of apartheid in South Africa. However, we realize that the apartheid laws are still in place, as is the state of emergency, and that these measures continue to oppress
Oral Questions
the black majority in South Africa. Nelson Mandela said yesterday, and I quote: "To lift sanctions now would be to run the risk of aborting the process towards the complete eradication of apartheid".
Will the Acting Prime Minister and his government make a commitment today that they will not lift sanctions against South Africa until the apartheid laws have been lifted and the black majority will be able to vote at all levels and take part in the political life of their country?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Thade):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased the hon. gentleman asked this question and indicated his interest in this subject matter, because I think it is appropriate to say that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have been very much in the forefront on this issue and have given leadership.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: They have been among the leaders in the Commonwealth and elsewhere in the campaign of the last several years to exert pressure on South Africa for internal change and for change in the system of apartheid.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs said on Sunday that before we could start to remove any sanctions we have imposed there are some things that will be clearly necessary, and they would be the removal from the statute books of laws that give effect to the apartheid system.
The Prime Minister stated last night on the CBC program, The Journal, that the South Africans would have to lift the state of emergency, to release unconditionally political prisoners, and to put entrain a negotiating process. He said with respect to sanctions that a very important opinion which would have to be ascertained before any such actions could be taken would that of Mr. Mandela.
I think that that sets out the Canadian position to which we will be adhering, and I hope that gets the support of the hon. gentleman.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the move to lift sanctions will not begin until there is in place in South Africa the right to vote and the right to

February 12, 1990
Oral Questions
participate in the political process for the black majority. That was something my hon. friend did not mention.


OPEN SKIES CONFERENCE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Deputy Prime Minister or his colleague relating to new international developments.
This morning in his address to the Open Skies Conference the Prime Minister became perhaps the second last Canadian to admit, and I quote: "The cold war is over." He also said, and I quote again: "We are no longer hostage to the frozen political meteorology of suspicion and animosity".
Clearly the Prime Minister's own credibility at the Open Skies Conference is impaired while his government clings to a defence White Paper filled with cold war rhetoric.
Will the Prime Minister instruct the last cold warrior, the Minister of National Defence, formally to put aside the 1987 White Paper on defence and produce a new defence policy based on wide public consultation which is relevant to what is really going on in the world?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, not having the warmth of my hon. friend across the way, I guess I could accept that criticism.
As I have said earlier in the House, the White Paper was enunciated during the years 1984 to 1987. What was put into that White Paper at the time was realistic. Unfortunately we did not have the foresight to see the changes that have taken place and which we very much welcome. I cannot say to the hon. member that further changes will not take place in the world, and we hope that changes will be positive.
We are assessing our defence force structure at this time and we will continue to do so. As I said to his colleague the critic for defence and his party, I think prudence and patience at this time, as well as co-operation with our NATO allies through discussions such as
Open Skies that are taking place today, will bring forward peace and security to the world.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians will be disappointed that the Minister of National Defence is not able to say forthrightly at this time that the outmoded defence White Paper of 1987 has been put aside and the government is preparing one that relates to what is going on today.
Why can the Prime Minister or his Minister of National Defence not give a straightforward answer on this point today? After all, for some time now we have been hearing about the foreign policy review being undertaken at the Department of External Affairs.
Canadians find it ironic that at a time when the countries of eastern Europe are turning to democracy and when there is a reduction of superpower tensions their own government is undertaking a major review of foreign policy behind closed doors. The Prime Minister seems to believe in open skies, but he does not believe in open government.
Will the Prime Minister instruct his Secretary of State for External Affairs to begin a new policy of review of what is going on in the world and Canada's policy in that regard, with wide public participation so that we will have a relevant approach to eastern Europe rather than outmoded rhetoric?
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International
Trade): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman must be having difficulty in finding something to oppose today, as can be seen from the questions that he is asking.
Just last week the Secretary of State for External Affairs, for whom I am deputizing today, made a major address in Montreal on revised policies he is considering as a result of the changes that have occurred in eastern Europe in the last several months.
Policy is constantly being reviewed, refurbished, renewed and produced in co-operation with other departments of the government and with the public.
I recommend to the hon. gentleman that he obtain and read closely and carefully all future speeches by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
February 12, 1990


INTEREST RATES
Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, there is total confusion among Canadian and foreign investors, following a series of conflicting statements by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Could the Minister of Finance explain to the House today exactly what his government's policy is on interest rates this week and what the government's policy will be next week, after he has brought down his Budget?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government will be the same this week as it will be next week.
We have made it very clear that we have some real concerns about the level of inflationary pressures in the economy today. They are still there, and we want to make sure that we get this inflation wrung out of the system before we see any meaningful drop in interest rates. That has been the policy we have been following for some time now.
There have been some signs in recent months of some easing in inflationary pressures. As I have said on many occasions in the past, we are not out of the woods yet. We still have a ways to go to deal with this problem so that we can avoid the mess we got into as a country when the previous government ignored the inflationary pressures in the late 1970s and early 1980s. That is the policy for this government to avoid.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, the government's lack of a coherent policy is in fact causing a lot of chaos both here in Canada and on foreign market exchanges.
My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, in the absence of the Prime Minister. Does the government support high interest rates? Does the government support a high Canadian dollar? Does the government support the policies of the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada?
The question has to be: What was the purpose of the Prime Minister's statement last week that blew the Canadian dollar all to pieces on the international markets?
Oral Questions
If he agrees with the policy of the government, what was the Prime Minister talking about last Friday?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think there is another indication here of the hon. member going off half cocked. If he had read the full statement of the Prime Minister he would understand that there was a clear misinterpretation by the market of a very limited, edited version of what the Prime Minister said.
The member can check the words, but the policy of the Prime Minister, the policy of the Minister of Finance and the policy of the Governor of the Bank of Canada are all the same, a very coherent policy, a very simple policy: we must get inflation down in this country and we are going to do that.


OPEN SKIES CONFERENCE
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Canada is hosting the international Open Skies Conference this week, a move that could provide a landmark in co-operation and confidence building measures.
This morning the Prime Minister said that the cold war is over. However, at the same time the government persists with plans to welcome a NATO tactical fighter centre to Goose Bay, Labrador, a move that would involve the largest military expansion in Canada since the cold war days of the 1950s.
I ask the minister to explain why he is even considering this now. Why will the minister not take leadership for peace in the country and the world?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I will explain to the hon. member if I could. The reason the Government of Canada is considering that as a NATO ally is that Canadian forces pilots fly more low-level sorties over Germany with a population of 58 million people than will be flown by the allies over
100,000	square miles of Canada where no one has permanent residence.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, Germany and the people of Germany have said quite clearly that they do not want the low-level flights there. Canadians are saying the same thing. The Innu are saying they know that if this centre is approved the

February 12, 1990
Oral Questions
number of low-level flights will go from 7,000 a year to
40,000	a year.
The world is changing faster than this government. We have all seen dramatic changes in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Has the minister done a thorough internal review of the relevance of a tactical fighter centre in Goose Bay and low-level flights? Are they still relevant and applicable in the 1990s?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, as long as the men and women who serve in the Canadian forces are required to do low-level flights, they will need a place to train. As long as the NATO allies rely on low-level flights as a defensive mechanism, there will have to be training.
The offer by NATO to establish a NATO training centre has been put forward. Two countries in the alliance have said that they will attempt to accept this offer. If NATO continues to put forward the NATO tactical training base as an offer to both Turkey and Canada, we will have to assess, as we have already through the environmental impact study and through the other activities that are taking place, the options that Canada has in that case.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Low-altitude flights will increase from 7,000 to 40,000 annually if Canada approves the NATO Centre.
Considering the reservations expressed by a number of experts about the impact of low-altitude flights on the environment, would the Deputy Prime Minister recommend that the Minister of National Defence stop all low altitude flights until a new, independent study is made?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that the question that was asked in French will receive the same answer in English. No.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture.
I begin by quoting his predecessor, the Hon. John Wise, who had the good sense to resign his seat before these words caught up to him. He said: "The benefits for Canadian farmers will be tremendous if we are able to negotiate a new trade deal with the United States". He went on to say: "It must be a deal which once and for all regulates technical barriers in order to prevent their use to block trade, and a deal which gives Canada more secure access to our largest agricultural market."
In the minister's own speech to the Canada Meat Council on Friday he admitted that the trade deal is a fraud and a failure. He says it has given rise to further harassment by the Americans who are in fact now supplanting Canadian markets by their export subsidy programs and thus we will need a new arsenal of weapons to tackle Americans.
Now that the minister has admitted that the free trade deal is a failure, what are he and his government going to do about it? Rather than using the rhetoric, where is the beef when it comes to getting rid of this free trade deal?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, at no time did I admit that the free trade agreement was not working. The free trade agreement is working. There is a dispute-resolving mechanism.
The fact of the matter is that we are two of the world's largest trading nations and there are bound to be problems that arise from time to time. We have a mechanism now that can resolve these particular issues.
We are simply saying that we are going to use the instruments that are available through the free trade agreement and other mechanisms that we have at our disposal to ensure that the interests of Canadian agriculture and the interests of Canadian farmers are always upheld.
What we have, and the hon. member is very much aware of this, is a trade war that is going on between the European Community and the United States of America. The European Community has been engaged in huge subsidization of grain and oilseeds. It has changed from
February 12, 1990

becoming a major importer of grains to becoming the world's second largest exporter of grains. It has done it largely through the use of subsidies that have distorted world markets.
This brings into question the issue that the MTN negotiations currently under way are very important. We have to be a part of that process to ensure that the trade-distorting subsidies that are in place will be ratcheted down so that we can again achieve a more level playing field which will allow us to compete more favourably in international markets.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, there is a trade war being waged on the borders of this country by U.S. inspectors who are stopping meat exports from going into that country.
I think Canadian farmers will want to know specifically what the plan of action of this government is. Can the minister tell us when this government will undertake action to retaliate against the use by the United States of an increase of its Export Enhancement Program which is supplanting grain markets for Canadian farmers?
Can the minister tell us when we will take action to stop the border harassment by U.S. customs inspectors?
Will the minister tell us explicitly when he will take action to repair the bleeding away of our farm marketing boards under the yogurt and ice cream measures that were initiated by the United States?
When is this government going to stop using camouflage and smoke screens and start taking action to stop the bleeding away of the Canadian farm industry?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I find it rather strange that the hon. member gets on to this subject after I made a speech in Toronto raising the issue and indicating that we were not going to sit idly by and allow this to happen.
We are taking the initiative and there are corresponding actions that can be taken. We have advised the Americans that we will do that.
Oral Questions
What we have seen is a willingness on the part of the administration to recognize the problem that exists. There are some difficulties they have in terms of resolving the issue.
I am confident that it will be resolved. I indicated directly to Secretary of Agriculture Yeutter and, indeed, to the Ambassador that we can always provide reciprocal action. We can do the same kind of inspections as they are doing, which would not serve the long-term interests of trade between our two countries.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States said that we have just seen the beginning of the use of the Export Enhancement Program by increasing it by almost 300 per cent to $900 million.
Does the minister know that this is destroying our markets abroad and that it is destroying the world price for grain? Can the minister say when the government is going to invoke Article 701.4 of the free trade deal and demand that the U.S. stop harassing our markets abroad?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, not to condone the use of the Export Enhancement Program, may I just point out to the hon. member that the figure to which he is referring is really $900 million and that it is for 1991, and not 1990. The original figure asked for, for 1990, was $1 billion and Congress approved $566 million.
What we have here is clearly a signal to the European Community that unless there is some progress made at the MTN in bringing down the level of trade distorting subsidies, the price war, the trade war will continue.
It is in our interest to ensure that success and progress is made at the MTN. Clearly, Article 701 of the free trade agreement to which the hon. member refers is a possible course of action. We are examining it, plus the fact that we have made direct representations to the Americans indicating that in the process of this trade war that continues, Canada gets sideswiped in the action, as do other countries such as Australia.

February 12, 1990
Oral Questions
Is is an urgent matter, but there are mechanisms under the free trade agreement which we believe can be useful in resolving this matter. We will use those mechanisms.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that last fall when the government accepted the GATT panel decision with regard to ice cream and yogurt that this had the potential to destroy the whole marketing board system in Canada.
What assurance can the minister give the dairy farmers of this country that when the government does propose changes to Article XI of the GATT that we will not be making proposals that will allow massive new access to our processed dairy products to the Canadian market by United States producers? What assurance can he give the industry?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the opposition is against the free trade agreement. They are against GATT. They are against trade of all kinds. It is quite obvious.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He should be the first one to recognize that without trade we would not have much of an agricultural industry because 50 per cent of our agriculture income comes from trade.
The GATT panel that he has referred to has been accepted. We have said from day one that Article XI had to be clarified and strengthened. That has been the position of the Canadian government at the negotiating table.
We will present a formalized position, strengthening and clarifying Article XI so that it will ensure the maintenance of farm marketing boards in Canada.
Clearly, the members of the agricultural community who are involved in the marketing boards and supply management systems are satisfied with our position. Only the hon. member is not.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same subject as raised by my colleague, the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, with the minister last week.
I want to refer to the minister's speech as reported in an article which appeared in The Toronto Star. It states:
Mazankowski, who is also agriculture minister, said the intimidation caused by increased inspections of Canadian meat at the border crossings has to stop or Canada will begin to do the same to U.S. imports.
That is what he said. The minister is nodding.
The article states further:
He also lashed out at American "harassment" of our pork producers. These producers face an 8-cent-per-kilogram countervailing duty on shipments exported to the U.S.
And he said Canada will no longer tolerate being caught in the crossfire of the agricultural subsidy war between the United States and the European Community.
Those are tough words.
I will come to my question after this.
But he told reporters that his remarks shouldn't be characterized as retaliation against the Americans.
I want to ask the minister this. Are you playing hardball or pat-a-cake? The Americans are kicking the slats out of the Canadian pork producers. The minister makes a tough speech and then you is not prepared to follow up.
Tell this House, through the Chair, Mr. Minister, whether or not you are prepared to do anything, or are you just making speeches?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is yes, we are prepared to do something.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister tell this House that he is prepared today to tell the Americans that he wants to invoke an interpretation of 701.4 right now? Is he prepared to do that right now, today?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, first he was dealing with meat inspection. Then he was dealing with pork. Now he is dealing with wheat. What question does he want answered?
The fact of the matter is the article is there and maybe it is time to test it. We are considering that action.


David Barrett: Pat-a-cake!
February 12, 1990


NORTHERN BENEFITS
Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane -Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It concerns the task force report on northern and isolated areas.
Two weeks ago the minister told me that he refuses to meet with the mayors of my riding and other ridings of northern Canada. Is he willing to reconsider his decision and, at the very least, let the program remain as is with the distance factor being the only criterion to qualify?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I did indicate to my hon. friend that with the budget coming up it is very difficult to meet with a broad range of people on this particular subject. I appreciate the hon. member's interest in this. If he wishes to convey any specific suggestions to me, I will be happy to look at those.


Réginald Bélair: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will.

In December 1986, you issued a press release that contained the following statement:
The program's new provisions are fair and reasonable. They renew the commitment made by the Conservative Government to residents in the North and isolated posts.
Does the Minister intend to keep his word and honour the commitments he made to residents in Canada's North?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is well aware of the inequities that this program has had, inequities that we are trying to resolve.
We have asked the task force to come up with some proposals. Those proposals were provided by the task force last October. They are under review now. Once we have had an opportunity to have a full study of those, we will be making our decision.
Oral Questions


YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday we heard the Minister of Employment and Immigration give the government's response to double digit unemployment faced by Canada's students. The response was a 35 per cent cut to the SEED program.
The Canadian Federation of Students estimates that
24,000	jobs will be affected.
Will the minister reconsider these cuts and return to the students their much needed summer jobs as they continue to struggle with higher tuition fees, an increasing debt load, escalating education costs and the future threat of the GST on their education?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I the hon. member and the Canadian Federation of Students know that the average unemployment rate among students aged 20 to 24 last year was 4.7 per cent. That is well below what it is for other people of that age group in other sectors of the population.
I have said that we will make our program sensitive to those regions where there is some higher unemployment than there is in other areas.
I remind the hon. member that in the area that is inhabited by himself and myself there were more jobs than there were young people to fill them last summer.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, when I get up in this House I speak for students throughout Canada, not merely for students in my own area.
Both post-secondary education students and high school students need much assistance. What made the minister's announcement shocking was the fact that the stay-in-school initiative channels funds away from students and gives it to useless, expensive propaganda machines and a bureaucratic maze of consultants.
I will give you some free advice-


Some hon. members:: Order!


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Why does the minister not give the money directly to the students, not to the bureaucrats and the various businesses which will be making money on this particular program?

February 12, 1990
Oral Questions


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I do very much value the hon. member's advice. I certainly value the fact that he speaks for students from across Canada.
I would point out to them all that nobody speaks for students across Canada better than this government has.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: I want to point out that a good part of what is happening in the stay-in-school initiative and in the Challenge program is that it is going to be very much a hands-on program. It is going to be an extension of some of the things that we have been doing now, which includes things like co-op education and other things that I think the hon. member would approve of.
It is very important for our young people that they stay in school throughout high school or they will never get to the post-secondary level. The extra education they get by staying in school, particularly in the less developed regions of the country, will help us in terms of our regional development as well.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the same minister.
I would like to ask the minister why the report by her advisory committee entitled Regional Unemployment in Canada-A Nation out of Balance, which was completed in November, was not tabled and presented to the Canadian people until February of this year.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, it is up to the advisory council to publish the report whenever it chooses. I was presented with the report last week. It has some interesting ideas in it. When I have had a chance to examine it further, I will be happy to report to the House.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the minister's senior officials were involved in this study. They knew last November how the VIA cuts, the unemployment insurance cuts and the post-secondary education cuts were hurting Canadians. Why was that kept a secret from Canadians?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, that sounded like the same question to me. Let me see if I can phrase my answer another way.
The report that was developed by the advisory council and presented to me last week was in the hands of the advisory council. I would hate to think that it was in the hands of my officials because it is an independent council. I think the hon. member would agree that that is the way it should be.


AGRICULTURE
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. It concerns the farm debt review boards which have been performing a very valuable farm debt intermediation service, but whose mandate is scheduled to expire at the end of March 1991.
Noting this date, a number of valuable farm debt review board employees and counsellors are naturally concerned about their future employment. Given the ongoing need for the farm debt review boards and the expertise of the personnel, can the minister indicate his intention to extend the mandate of the farm debt review boards past March 1991?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the farm debt review board has been a very successful concept. I believe something in the order of 70 per cent-plus of all the applications that were brought before the farm debt review board have been resolved. I believe something in excess of 8,000 different applications were brought before it.
On the basis of the success that the program has had, we would be very supportive of its continuation.
I have to advise my hon. colleague, as he is well aware, that there is a major review of agriculture policy being undertaken. One of the areas in which we are engaged in the review of is with respect to farm management and financing.

February 12, 1990

We would ask the task force which is looking at this particular issue in detail to look also at the issue of the farm debt review boards and whether they should play a permanent role in the future.
Having regard to the success and the very comprehensive review that is being undertaken, I can only say that we will make a decision in the best interests of the agricultural community. I hope that will meet the concerns of the hon. member.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, on January 29 the Minister of Finance said in this House, and I quote: "About one half of the $18 billion in federal sales tax revenue currently comes from the taxation of business inputs."
My question for the Minister of Finance is very simple. It requires just a yes or no answer. Will he agree that the change from the manufacturers' sales tax to the goods and services tax represents the single largest reduction in tax burden at the corporate level in the history of Canada?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend is playing with words here because he knows that any consumption tax is always paid by the final consumer.
What we are trying to do is ensure that the amount of that tax is the same for all products, rather than having some products taxed at an effective rate of 1 per cent or 2 per cent and other products taxed at an effective rate of up to 13.5 per cent. That is the precise reason why we are moving to a goods and services tax.
The hon. member is trying to be just a little too cute with the question that he has just asked.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, you might say that that was a bit of a cute answer.
The minister cannot have it both ways. Either the reduction tax in business inputs is going to increase the money available for capital investment, which he has been claiming is one of the benefits of the tax, or it is going to be passed on to consumers. It does not work both ways.
Oral Questions

So I will repeat my question, and it is as simple as this: Does replacing the manufacturers' sales tax with the GST represent the biggest reduction in corporate tax in Canada's history, yes or no?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that sounded very much like the same question. The answer is still the same.
Taxes that are consumption taxes are paid, ultimately, by the consumer. Businesses are collectors of taxes along the way. They pass those taxes on through their price to the consumer. In that way the consumer ends up paying.
That is precisely the problem with the existing tax because, depending on the method of distribution and depending on what the tax rate is on the basic product, there may be a tax rate of 2 per cent, 5 per cent, 7 per cent or 13.5 per cent. In some cases I have heard of tax rates at 19 per cent.
What we are trying to do through this GST reform proposal is to ensure that all products are taxed at the same rate of 7 per cent where they are taxable.


JUSTICE
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
We all know that one judge in this country called a three-year-old girl sexually aggressive. We all know that another one said that sexual assaults against native women were not so serious. We all know that a third said that rules like women were made to be violated.
We all know, too, that Madam Justice Wilson at Osgoode Hall last week called for education of all judges on gender issues.
Will the Minister of Justice assure this House that such programs will immediately be undertaken? Will he personally oversee this small step on the road to true equity?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will know that in the previous administration of this government we set up the Canadian Judicial Centre to provide courses and training for the judiciary.

Oral Questions
I should point out to her that a course in sexism is being presented this summer.
She will also know that this government has far exceeded the numbers of the previous Liberal administration in the appointments of women to the bench.
She will know that there are now three women sitting on the bench of the Supreme Court of Canada.
We are making every effort to tackle this problem. If my hon. friend has any suggestions I would welcome them.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, it sounds good and the government likes to talk numbers, but let us talk percentages.
Given that only 9 per cent of federally appointed judges in this countiy are women, can the minister give a commitment that this government will significantly increase the numbers of women judges within its purview and do it soon?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, since my hon. friend brought up percentages, I would suggest to her that 16 of the 66 judges elevated to higher office, or 24 per cent of the elevations made by this government, were women.
Also, 16.7 per cent of the total appointments have been women. My hon. friend will know but will not admit it on the floor of the House that that is much better than the previous Liberal administration.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


THE BUDGET
James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Canadians outside of Ottawa are incensed that budget documents will not be made available to them as traditionally done on budget day, but will only be made available in Ottawa.
Does the Minister understand that individuals and small corporations will be at a disadvantage because they will not be able to act with the same speed as large corporations which have a presence in Ottawa? Does the Minister realize that this decision is unfair and places
Canadians not residing in Ottawa at an economic disadvantage?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern that is expressed by my hon. friend. We have revised the processes for the distribution of documents this year. I am sure he is aware that at the opening of business the next day people across the country will have the budget documents and will be able to work from those in a very short period of time after the budget is brought before the House.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has simply confirmed that people across Canada will not have the same opportunity as those residing here.
Can he explain this to the House? The budget leak took place in Ottawa-not in Montreal or Vancouver. Why is he punishing the people in Canada rather than those responsible in Ottawa?


Mr. Boudria:: Ottawa is in Canada.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of punishing anybody. What we are doing here is having a slight change of the processes by which we distribute budget documents.
There will also be available the various services to which most of the law firms and accounting firms are subscribers. That is where most of the businesses get their information from.
In that way they will be able to get the same amount of information just as quickly as they were able to before. It is just that the documents themselves will be a few hours later.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The minister has insisted that the current MST content for new housing is 4.5 per cent of the cost of a house, while the housing industry has insisted that the figure is closer to 3.7 per cent.
The Minister maintains that the GST will have little or no impact on housing prices, but industry figures show that house prices will increase by 2 per cent.
February 12, 1990

I have been informed that Revenue Canada has done a calculation on the existing MST content of new housing and has discovered that it is considerably lower than the Department of Finance figures.
Will the Minister next week table the calculations of Revenue Canada and the calculations of the Department of Finance with the finance committee so that the public will know once and for all that the GST is bad for housing and bad for people?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have said that there is a range of effective tax rates. I have never said that it is just 4.5 per cent. In some communities it is 4.5 per cent, in other communities it is less than that. I have said that it is less than the 3.7 per cent average the building industry is saying that it is.
But when you compare that 3.7 per cent to the 4.5 per cent net GST, that is, the 7 per cent less the 2.5 per cent rebate, the difference is less than 1 per cent. That is the point that I have made time and again. The 1 per cent difference in the price of a house is not going to affect adversely the affordability of housing and that is the commitment that we made.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, I find that answer quite unacceptable and so do the people who want to buy new houses in this country. One per cent on a new house in Toronto is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $8,000 to $9,000. One per cent in London, Ontario, is $2,000. One per cent in Vancouver is $6,000. One per cent in Nova Scotia is about $1,000. People who want to buy new houses do not need any additional new taxes on new housing.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my colleague says that 1 per cent is $8,000. That is an $800,000 house to which the hon. member is referring. This is another example of the Liberals standing up for their rich friends.
We do not feel that it is necessary to protect people in this country who can afford an $800,000 house. If that is the policy of the Liberal Party, so be it. It is not the policy of this government.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!
Speaker's Ruling PRIVILEGE


TAKING OF VOTES-SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to bring to the attention of the House a ruling on a question which hon. members will remember was raised by the hon. member for Calgary West on Wednesday, January 24, following several recorded divisions that day. Put simply, there was the suggestion that some hon. members may have voted twice.
Subsequently, these incidents were raised by the hon. member for Calgary West. The hon. member claimed, as a question of privilege, that contrary to the established rules and practices of this House, two members voted twice on those divisions. This charge was denied by the members involved, both on Wednesday when the issue was first raised, and again on Thursday.
The issue was extensively discussed last Thursday and I wish to thank all hon. members who made presentations.
On Friday, the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair offered an apology to the House for any unintended misunderstandings caused by his actions during the divisions in question. This apology closes the matter in so far as the question of privilege is concerned.

However, as Speaker, I want to make a few comments on the events that took place. It is accepted practice that when the House is considering an item of government policy that is highly contentious, members of the opposition will seek to use any means available to them to delay the proceedings. As we have witnessed over the years the ingenuity of the opposition to find ways to delay the business of government is considerable. Such dilatory tactics, are of course, an important part of the adversarial nature of this place and a legitimate tool for the opposition. At the same time, however, I must point out that any such tactics by the opposition must fall squarely within the rules or practices of the House and I would ask all Hon. Members to keep this in mind.

At no time should dilatory tactics ever detract from the authority or the dignity of the House. In the heat of the moment, members may sometimes depart from the normal courtesies, but the basic respect for our practices must be insisted upon. The Chair would be derelict in its

February 12, 1990
Routine Proceedings
duties to all hon. members and to this institution if it were to tolerate any erosion of that respect.
Therefore, I urge members on all sides of the House to consider their behaviour carefully, and most especially, in the heat of partisan debate in order that we may preserve and protect the dignity and respect due to this Chamber in which we have all been called to serve.
I thank hon. members for their interventions.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for your ruling and I would also like to officially notify the House that tomorrow will be an allotted day.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table a report by the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Canadian National concerning the business relationship of Mr. Brian Gallery with Canadian National.


PETITIONS
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government responses to 300 petitions.


ELECTIONS, PRIVILEGES, PROCEDURE AND PRIVATE MEMBER'S BUSINESS TABLING OF TENTH REPORT
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the Tenth Report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Members' Business.

As Your Honour will have heard, in the view of the committee, the name of this committee is excessively long. The tenth report is quite a short and simple one. It recommends that the name of the committee be changed to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT ACT
Lloyd Axworthy: for leave to introduce Bill C-286, an act to amend the Export Development Act (commercial credits).


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am proposing amendments to the Export Development Act which deal with giving the Export Development Corporation new powers to provide for the marketing of commodities from Third World countries. As we all know, this creates very serious problems right now with Third World debt. Many Third World countries have great difficulty in marketing their commodities. This will allow the Export Development Corporation to market those commodities, keep the currency in Canadian terms and then allow them to buy goods and services in Canada. I represent this bill to the House.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
February 12, 1990


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

Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty in accordance with Standing Order 36 to present a petition from 1,400 residents of Cambridge and Kitchener who support more severe criminal sentencing for violent crimes. They ask Parliament to pass legislation establishing mandatory minimum sentences for all violent crimes which would apply uniformly to all regions of Canada.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today. The first one I have the honour and privilege to present was collected by the Mayor of the northern village of Green Lake, a Metis community in northwest Saskatchewan, a community that experiences 85 per cent unemployment and a high social assistance problem.
The petition calls on the Parliament of Canada to reject the recommendations of the report of the task force on tax benefits for northern and isolated areas released in October. It calls on the government to recognize the financial needs of the people in northern and isolated areas. This is signed by 197 people in the northern community of Green Lake.
The second petition I have is signed by residents of the community of Pierceland, another community in northwest Saskatchewan in my riding of The Battlefords- Meadow Lake. The petition recognizes that residents of northern Canada need a real tax benefit which recognizes the high cost of living and working in areas prescribed as northern and isolated, and calls on the government to reject the recommendations of the task force on northern benefits and declare an equitable and fair tax program for residents of the North.
Mr. Speaker, finally, it is my pleasure and privilege to present a petition signed by an additional 114 people in the town of Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan. The petition also recognizes that the report of the task force on northern benefits released in October, fails to address
Routine Proceedings
the realities of the economy of northern Canada, and calls upon Parliament to reject the recommendations of the task force report and to develop a fair and equitable tax benefit program, recognizing the financial needs of the people in northern and isolated areas.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions. The first one is from a number of Canadians who are very disturbed that the GST has been introduced in this House. They call upon the government to take actions to withdraw this tax immediately.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from a number of Saskatchewan farmers who are concerned with respect to the future of the Canadian Wheat Board. They are concerned that oats have been removed from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board and that wheat and barley may also be removed, completely removing the necessity for a Wheat Board.
They call upon the government to reinstate oats to the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board and provide oats with the same protection that barley and wheat have under the Wheat Board Act.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan -Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise today pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Nova Scotia. These residents petition the Minister of Finance against his proposed goods and service tax, saying that it is an unfair form of taxation because of its lack of regard for the taxpayer's ability to pay. They ask the minister and the government to cease this proposal to shift the tax burden onto ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumption tax, instead of through real tax reform.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 from University of Ottawa students in my riding of Ottawa-Vanier. These students wish to voice their strong opposition to the imposition of a 7 per cent goods and services tax and join with the hundreds of thousands of citizens opposing this very regressive and unwanted tax.

February 12, 1990
Routine Proceedings


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 herewith table one petition from Matagami and one from Lebel-sur-Quevillon, arising from recommendations made by the Task Force on Tax Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas.
Your petitioners who represent these isolated communities are very concerned and reject the report's recommendations, one consequence of which would be that many workers would be laid off.
They believe that the Government of Canada refuses to make adjustments to reflect the harsh realities of life in the North.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great honour to table a petition signed by nearly 200 people in the community of Dubuc in my riding of Yorkton-Melville. The petitioners call upon the House to keep the post office in Dubuc open. Canada Post is in the process of trying to close that post office. In fact, last week Linda Ungar and Daphne Hedstrom of Dubuc were down here and spent an hour before the Consumer and Corporate Affairs committee explaining that they wanted to save the post office as is and that they did not want to have a retail postal outlet in the town of Dubuc.
With 200 signatures on this petition, almost everybody in the village and the surrounding farm area have signed the petition. I think you can see how serious they are. I hope the House will take it as such.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present petitions on behalf of 200 or so constituents of Saskatoon-Humboldt and of the constituency of the Minister of National Defence.
People in places like Wakaw, Cudworth, Birch Hills, Alsask, and Kerrobert call upon the government to reject their current proposal for a goods and services tax, to reform the taxation system so that there is a maximum tax on wealthy corporations and individuals, and to
ensure that a regressive tax not be put on but that tax reform be dealt with so it is of value to all Canadians.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I rise to present two petitions on the subject of the goods and services tax, signed by some 150 Canadians from the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
The petitioners point out that since September 1984 this government has imposed at least 31 new tax increases on Canadian taxpayers and suggest strongly that the imposition of the new goods and services tax will cause serious and unfair hardship to low and middle income Canadians, and will create an onerous burden on small business.
For those reasons they call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table nine petitions representing hundreds of Canadians in my riding of York West who indicate through their signatures their disapproval for the government's goods and services tax.
Not only will it place an unfair burden on those low and middle income earners in York West but, as well, deliver a crippling blow to the extensive small business sector that forms the backbone of this community and indeed Canada.
I urge this government to reject its goods and services tax and provide Canadians with serious and genuine tax reform.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions to present today from residents of my constituency who have great concerns about the proposed goods and services legislation.
Besides these petitions that I have in my hand, I have received thousands of signed petition forms from my constituency from people who did not address me through petitions on the correct form. Many of the people who have presented these petitions to me represent lower income families in my riding for whom the child tax credits and the credits suggested by the government will simply be insufficient to cover the costs of the goods and services tax for them.
They simply cannot bear the burden of this added taxation and ask the government to repeal this proposed legislation.
February 12, 1990


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Beausejour):: Mr. Speaker, it is also my duty to present in the House a number of petitions from people in my riding, residents of Cap-Pele and Petit-Cap. Your petitioners humbly state that Canada's sovereignty has been violated and its resources plundered, and that the fisheries are at the very heart of the Atlantic region's economy.
Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to extend its jurisdiction to include the entire continental shelf, so that Canada can protect and regulate the fish resources that are vital to Atlantic fishermen.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I have a total of 16 petitions from various parts of Canada, including many from the riding of my friend, the Leader of the Opposition, in Windsor, Ontario.
People in my riding and people all over this country by the hundreds of thousands, and particularly lower income people and those people who now have no income because of the collapse of the fishery of Atlantic Canada, are calling upon the government to withdraw the goods and services tax which is being proposed.
They appeal to the government to rethink, review and take this tax back to the drawing board. The tax will not work and this is just the first signal of a growing, all-out tax revolt. I have pleasure in tabling the petitions.


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


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Privilege


PRIVILEGE
Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to your attention a matter which I feel is a contempt of Parliament. It deals with Bill C-26, commonly referred to as the at and east program. I believe the action taken by Transport Canada and the Minister of Transport have usurped Parliament and in so doing have impeded the House in the performance of its function in respect of Bill C-26.
I propose very briefly to outline the relevant facts and state why I feel that a contempt of this House has been committed.
In last year's budget, it was announced that the at and east program would be eliminated effective July 15,1989. This program is found in Section 281 of the Railway Act which provides a subsidy to railways that are hauling grain and flour to eastern ports, mainly Saint John and Halifax, provided certain conditions are met. This program has been in effect for 20 years and in fact a whole economy has been built up in the maritimes around this program.
First reading of Bill C-26 took place on June 16, 1989 and since then the bill has not seen the light of day in this House until today. In the meantime, a series of moves by Transport Canada have, in effect, eliminated this program. This started with a meeting held on May 4, 1989, by officials of Transport Canada. That meeting was confirmed in a letter to myself from the Minister of Transport in which he states, and I quote:
On May 4, 1989, Transport Canada officials held a meeting in
Ottawa with representatives from affected organizations to provide
information on the decision.
This was followed by correspondence from Mr. C. McElman, Director of Rail Freight Programs with Transport Canada. This correspondence discusses the removal of this program.
As a result of this meeting, correspondence and other discussions, both CP Rail and CN Rail stopped hauling grain and flour pursuant to this section. This was confirmed, first of all, by letter from CP Rail on September 22, 1989. It states:

Privilege
By letter dated June 27,1989, Mr. McElman replied that the grain must be loaded in a railway car at an inland point on or before July 15, 1989 to be eligible for subsidy. Mr. McElman's reply confirmed the budget speech of the Minister of Finance.
In a further letter dated June 29, 1989, Mr. McElman again confirmed the demise of the At and East rates, when he stated, in part, that the rates and subsidy program are cancelled on the dates specified, even if Parliamentary approval comes at a later date.
A letter from CN Rail on December 13 confirms the same thing. It states: "CN has effectively cancelled certain provisions of Thriff-as they apply to the movement of grain in bulk and of flour for export".
This initiative is directly related to information provided by Mr. C. McElman of Transport Canada who clearly stated to the industry that even if parliamentary sanction was to be received at a later date, the rates and subsidy program would disappear on July 15, 1989.
How is this contempt of Parliament? In referring to your order of October 10-and I am paraphrasing-I believe a number of authorities have indicated that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its function could well be contempt.
Mr. Speaker, in paraphrasing your words, also any act that has the effect or tends to diminish the authority of the House in the eyes of the public may well be contempt.
I believe this has happened with this bill and that this House will now be impeded in dealing with Bill C-26. This happened in two fashions: first of all, by the actions of Transport Canada and the Minister of Transport, as I have just outlined, and second, the fact that the bill has not been back in this House for seven months since the removal of this program. In fact, it has not been in the House since this program has been removed de facto. This has had a major effect on certain regions of the maritimes, particularly in Saint John, New Brunswick and Halifax, Nova Scotia.
I believe that the matter hinges, to some extent, on the fact that the bill is retroactive. I want to make it very clear that there is no dispute that bills can be retroactive. That is very clear. If, in fact, this bill passes this House, it will be good law. However, it is submitted that there is a need to be reasonable with this type of legislation.
Professor Hogg, who is one of the country's leading constitutional experts discusses this in the second edition of his book on constitutional law. On page 776, he states:
The power to enact retroactive laws, if exercised with appropriate restraint, is a proper tool of modem government.
But he stresses "appropriate restraint".
I think that also has to be considered in light of your ruling, Your Honour, on October 10, in which you stated at page 4461 of Hansard:
I expect the Department of Finance and other departments to study this ruling carefully and remind everyone within the Public Service that we are a parliamentary democracy, not a so-called executive democracy, nor a so-called administrative democracy.
I am concerned about the period since Transport Canada effectively removed Bill C-26 as it now stands drafted. What authority does Transport Canada have to make such an implementation? I think none. Only Parliament can enact or change legislation. Although we must be flexible, cabinet does not make the laws in this country, nor do departments. We are not in an executive or administrative democracy. If we are, why do we have Parliament at all? Surely there must be a role for parliamentarians to play in this country. If it is not the case, maybe we should all go home.
Mr. Speaker, unlike the GST which was referred to in your ruling on October 10, this is not something that will happen. It is something that already has happened. Already rail grain shipments have stopped to Halifax and Saint John, the elevator at Saint John has announced it will be closing at the end of February, the Halifax elevator is in trouble and Dover Flour Mills in Halifax is suffering. It is estimated that this is going to cost the maritimes some $27 million annually along with some 250 jobs. It is already happening because of an executive or administrative decision, not because of any act of this Parliament.
If Parliament should decide to leave the at and east or make any modifications, it may be too late because, as I said, already the elevator at Saint John is closed and this whole infrastructure that has developed around this program is being dismantled. The bill was introduced in June, the program was eliminated in July and it is only now that the bill is coming before Parliament.
In summary, there are two reasons for contempt today. First of all, that this bill is going beyond convention and historical practices of retroactive legislation. A distinction must be drawn between tax legislation which is, by its very nature, subject to ongoing modification and a
February 12, 1990

situation such as represented by Bill C-26 with a termination of a longstanding subsidy program has caused serious economic dislocation for the affected regions and industries in Saint John and Halifax.
Second, this bill was on the Order Paper for seven months before it was brought before this House and there has been serious economic upheaval created in the maritimes by a de facto decision of a department of this government. This was done not because of any instructions, order or decision made in this House. If Your Honour so finds that there is a prima facie case, I would be pleased to make the appropriate motion.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest and I am a little disappointed that the hon. member did not give us an advance warning that he intended to raise this question of privilege. That would have given us a chance to look at the arguments he wanted to make and the issues he wanted to address.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair can assist the hon. parliamentary secretary. The hon. member has raised an interesting and complex argument. He has argued it in a very succinct fashion and I thank him for it.
If the hon. parliamentary secretary would like to adjourn this over until tomorrow afternoon, I would be very pleased. I notice the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is rising. Given the argument that has been put forward, it might be appropriate. If so, I certainly will do so.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, in fact, that is what I was going to request, that we be given some time to look at the hon. member's arguments and to consider our own so that we can properly address the issue.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to say that whatever my ruling on the application might be, it would not interfere with debate continuing on the bill. The hon. member has made it very clear that the complaint is in terms of the action by the two railways and the department before this bill became law. Whatever happens in the debate takes nothing away from the argument that the hon. member has put forward.
Government Orders
I see the hon. member is indicating his agreement, as is the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, to put the matter over so that the Chair can hear further argument tomorrow. Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Shirley Martin (for the Minister of Transport) moved: that Bill C-26, an act to amend the Railway Act (grain and flour subsidies), be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to open the debate on second reading of Bill C-26, an act to amend the Railway Act. This government is committed to building a strong economy, an economy encouraged by incentive and opportunity, an economy which is competitive with the world's trading nations.
In order to fully achieve this goal we must create a solid base which will allow our economy to flourish in coming years. Measures which seek to control the deficit and reduce the national debt are an essential element of this foundation for the future. Equally, measures which seek to establish a sound fiscal framework to sustain a continued economic development are also essential to our purpose.
These objectives are reflected in this government's commitment to a sound transportation policy. Transportation is and always will be at the heart of our nation's economy. That is why we have undertaken to provide Canadians with a safe, efficient and effective transportation system. This commitment is the core around which our policy of economic regulatory reform was built.
With the advent of the free trade policy and the role played by transportation in our economic development, it is becoming increasingly vital as we enter this new decade and in the next centuiy. A cost effective transportation system is essential if Canada is to preserve and enhance its position in world trade. Therefore, the bill now before this House seeks to eliminate a subsidy which has outlived its original purpose and has become a burden on the public purse.

February 12, 1990
Government Orders
By way of background, Bill C-26 deals with a transportation subsidy which is commonly known as the at and east subsidy. This rather odd name evolved from an attempt to counterbalance American freight rates which would encourage the movement of western Canadian grain between Buffalo, New York, and the port of New York City during the winter freeze up on the Great Lakes; in other words, movements at and east of Buffalo. The subsidy which was introduced in an effort to counter this U.S. initiative and to keep our winter grain movements on Canadian soil quickly became known as the at and east subsidy.
The subsidy gave shipping rail rates to eastern ports which were frozen at the 1960 rate for grain and the 1966 rate for flour. The government then paid the railways an amount equal to the difference between the frozen rates and the actual cost of the movement. The level of the subsidy was independently determined by the National Transportation Agency.
The amounts of grain which move under the at and east subsidy represent less than 3 per cent of our total grain exports in a normal year. Various impact studies have been done on this subsidy in the past 15 years. They have all acknowledged that the at and east subsidy no longer serves the purpose for which it was originally intended. Canadian ports and railways can now compete effectively with their American counterparts for eastern exports of grain and flour.
Canadian taxpayers cannot afford to pay subsidies based on a 1960 policy which is no longer required. Savings are expected to be about $20 million in the first year and some $35 to $40 million annually thereafter. The subsidy was terminated on July 15, 1989.
However, the legislation stipulates that all inventories of grain and flour which were held by the railways on that date would be delivered at the subsidized rate, provided they reach the eastern port for export on or before January 31, 1990. This sixth-month period allowed for a smooth transition thereby minimizing the impact on the users.
Pre-confederation Canada had to struggle constantly to meet its transportation challenges. This rugged land of vast spaces needed unifying bonds. Our early needs for unification were met through the realization of Sir John A. Macdonald's grand dream of a transcontinental railway. The openings of the St. Lawrence Seaway and
the Trans-Canada Highway in 1959 and 1962 had enormous positive impacts on economic development and transportation. With new and ever growing technology, our expanding airwaves and communication have reduced the size of this country, and we are all now truly neighbours in this great nation.
Transportation must continue to play its vital role as we enter this new decade and the next century. In looking forward I see a transportation system with at least four essential elements: first and foremost, it will be safe; second, it will be efficient and effective, that is, it will make the best use of each mode of transportation, be it air, rail, marine, car, truck or bus; third, it will be responsive, that is, it will meet the needs of shippers and travellers; fourth, it will be innovative, both in the use of technology and in the services it offers.
The bill currently before us is one step in that direction. It will stimulate creativity and innovation. It will allow the industry to take advantage of unanticipated sales opportunities, no longer constraining potential cost savings.
Direct federal government expenditures associated with the grain transportation are very large. It must be remembered that the Canadian grain industry faces severe competition in world markets. A cost effective transportation system is essential, if Canada is to preserve its position in the world of grain trade. We must face the realities of our economy and our transportation system. Bill C-26 does just that. Therefore, I invite all members to give this legislation their full support.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to this bill today as a member of Parliament, as one who has spent a lifetime in the agricultural industry, and as one who recognizes the benefits that came from this particular bill, not just to farmers in Ontario but farmers all across western Canada.
It shocks me that the government would be withdrawing this at and east legislation at a time when the minister's own figures point out that for the coming year farm income will drop in Canada by 39 per cent: 101 per cent in the province of Saskatchewan and 87 per cent in Manitoba. Literally thousands of farmers across this nation are losing their farms, partly because of the callous disregard for their industry by this government and partly because of the cut-backs in funding. The

cut-back for the coming year will see the income drop by $2.6 billion, a drop of 64 per cent. We see these cut-backs taking place at a time when our neighbours to the south with whom we have that free trade agreement are gearing up to increase their export enhancement program for next year. This year the export enhancement program will see at least $566 million pumped into their export programs.
When the minister said that they are building a better, stronger economy, an economy that is competitive, I must ask: how do we compete with the subsidies of other countries when we are cutting ours out? Who is bearing the burden? The farmers are bearing this burden on their shoulders. It is coming to the point when they can no longer carry that burden and carry the rest of society.
They say that it is to reduce the deficit. The increase in taxes in the last budget on alcoholic products and tobacco was $475 million. The moneys spent on the at and east are a drop in the bucket compared to that.
We hear that free trade has made it vital to develop a cost effective transportation system. I would like to know how we can move the grain through the Seaway system with the winters we have in Canada, whereas the Mississippi waterway largely stays open for most of its length during the year. It seems very strange indeed that while we are cutting back on subsidies here in Canada, our neighbours to the south with whom we are competing for world markets are increasing theirs.
The at and east legislation was brought in, in the 1960s, not just to help the western farmers or the Ontario farmers. It was brought in for a very specific reason based on the fact that we needed a place to consolidate our grain shipments for export. We had flour mills in Atlantic Canada that needed a steady supply of grain over the winter months. Consequently the grains eligible for at and east rates included wheat, wheat flour, oats, barley, rye, corn, buckwheat and soybeans. For bulk grains, the subsidy applied for rail shipment from Georgian Bay in Ontario. This is where I as a farmer was able to make use of that program through our marketing boards that stored the grain in those Bayport elevators for shipment later on during freeze up to the Atlantic
Government Orders
coast to supply those flour mills and those ports by rail, for export.
Last winter the Canadian Wheat Board moved only 202,730 tonnes of prairie grain under the at and east rates, with 25,192 tonnes going to Quebec City and the rest to the Atlantic ports in Halifax and Saint John. On average, the rail shipments by the Canadian Wheat Board have been more like 400,000 to 500,000 tonnes per year.
What we are doing here is withdrawing the subsidy. Those markets in Atlantic Canada will now be available for imported grain out of the Texas gulf coast or other countries. Again Canadian producers will be deprived of another market. It is also interesting to note that local feed grains produced in Atlantic Canada only account for 20 per cent of Nova Scotia's requirements, 35 to 40 per cent of New Brunswick's requirements, and 80 per cent of Prince Edward Island's requirements.
That is going to cast an additional burden on the livestock and poultry producers of Atlantic Canada, as well as put a burden on and take a grain market away from farmers in the west.
I look at the amount of the United States grain that has been sold under the export enhancement program with subsidies that range from $6.48 a tonne back in September 21, to the most recent sale where they sold almost half a million tonnes of wheat to Russia with subsidies of $20.50 a tonne. I would ask the government to reconsider what it is doing by way of throwing these markets open to the vultures of the market-place and depriving them of Canadian grown grain of higher quality that can fill those markets.
In the budget that was leaked last April there was a total of $399 million listed that would not be available to the farmers of Canada. For example, a $200 million cut in crop insurance, $60 million for the at and east legislation before us today, rail branch line rehabilitation of $48 million, the grain and crop advance payments of $54 million, dairy exports of $12 million, commodity based loans at the Farm Credit Corporation of $15 million, and the Canadian Dairy Commission of $12 million.
When I see programs like that being discontinued, apparently under the guise of cutting back the deficit, I wonder how much of this was cut back in order to conform to the free trade agreement. Then I read where the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States told

Government Orders
the United States Senate last April 19, that he intended to write agricultural policies not only for the United States but also for the European Common Market, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Australia and so on.
I have to wonder if this legislation is some of his handiwork and if he has convinced the government to cut back on these and leave our producers out hanging in the breeze to wither and die when their subsidies are cut off. These subsidies have enabled them to compete very effectively over the years with the large geographical expanse that we have in this nation, to make their products available at the seaports on either side, east or west, and to provide jobs to the Canadian people.
In terms of the loss of jobs, according to the report of the Canadian Transport Commission on the at and east the following direct job benefits to the program were identified: 320 jobs connected with transport, 295 jobs in milling in western Canada, 75 jobs in the Georgian Bay ports, 85 jobs in Halifax and Saint John, and milling in central Canada was 402 jobs. Almost 1,200 jobs are connected to this piece of legislation.
The downturn in the economy in Atlantic Canada, and the disastrous impact resulting from the closure of the fish plants, is an equally hard blow to those people in Atlantic Canada. This program that served them so well should be continued and enhanced to make our milling companies, flour mills and ports competitive with those of our neighbours to the south.
The benefit of utilizing the at and east route for the Ontario wheat producers, for example, is very clear. It enables them to average export sales over the winter months. They have a system of pool pricing whereby they are able to do this, but they are providing importing countries with a continuous supply of grain, while yielding the producers the best average return.
The importing countries that are mentioned are buying this high quality wheat from Canada, the pasta wheat, and the at and east legislation allows the Wheat Board to keep a portion of the total volume of Ontario export grain temporarily off the market and spread those sales throughout the year to act as a hedge against a drop in price.
However this government does not think that way. It is quite content to sell it to the very large multinational grain companies and let them have control of it at harvest time and then reap the benefits of any price increases. Typically, under this system that we have at the present time, if the price is not acceptable to the Wheat Board it will choose to stay off the market and eventually move the grain by at and east, if necessary, when the price is more favourable, and since this route is subsidized, the Ontario wheat producers can use it with little financial penalty.
They say that in due consideration of the economics associated with the at and east program as applied to the total marketing system, the Ontario Wheat Board considers the program to be invaluable to its operation and to the interests of all facets of the industry. For the amount of dollars expended on the subsidy program it may be the best and least expensive insurance plan available to the eastern marketing system. That not only includes the Wheat Board. It also includes the elevators, the flour mills and the ports that I mentioned earlier.
Already the impact of this is showing up in the Bayport elevators in Georgian Bay. One of them is slated for demolition this year because of the loss of this legislation. This is another blow to the economy of those ports. I hesitate to say: "Forgive them Lord for they know not what they do".
Removal of the program would also reduce the income of the grain producers of Ontario in the amount of $3.60 a tonne, according to a Department of Agriculture working paper. They went on to make the statement that combined with the lack of transportation facilities and inadequate storage capacity the cost increase would have been more adversely affected across the country.
This attack on the maritimes too cannot be condoned. It may result in even less rail service, for if grain is no longer shipped by rail by the Canadian Wheat Board and the Ontario Wheat Growers Marketing Board the viability of several lines is put in question.
In 1988, according to the National Transportation Agency, 722,000 tonnes of export grain and 222,322 tonnes of export flour moved under the at and east rate structure. Atlantic ports represent 90 per cent of the total tonnage. If the program terminated and the elevators remained operational, $14 million in economic activity will be lost and the loss of feed costs would be
February 12, 1990

$222,000. Local milling producers would be faced with a loss of their only market should the flour mill in Halifax be unable to continue. It would result in a higher procurement costs for the feed industry and higher feed prices.
The maritimes are dealing with abandonment of approximately 50 per cent of the rail network in the region. Any loss of traffic which will affect the viability of the remaining lines is viewed as a very serious matter.
Canadian flour exports will be practically non-existent without the subsidy. This is a statement made by the Canadian Transport Commission. In the case of the flour milling industry it is likely that the size and scope of this sector will be greatly reduced. The export market might well disappear unless the government introduces some sort of assistance. Fred Hanson, flour co-ordinator of the Canadian National Millers Association, said that Halifax will lose business to Montreal and other western Canadian ports. I think the ports of Halifax and Saint John will be hard pressed to remain competitive.
The government looks upon the at and east as a subsidy. We should look at it rather as a positive effect on exports, yet here we are removing it. As I mentioned earlier, the export enhancement program in the United States is being maintained and increased. Indeed the government's and the minister's own Green Paper laments the lack of exports from Canada of highly processed agri-food products, noting that only 2 per cent of our total food exports are processed. Yet one hand does not know what the other hand is doing, because they are taking away this subsidy and then complaining about the fact that we do not have enough processing in Canada.
Similar to the advance payments for crops, The Budget Papers only identify partially the purpose of the program to rationalize the removal of the interest-free payments. This itself put the farmers of Canada under a further burden, and yet piece by piece we have seen the support systems of Canadian agriculture taken away at a time when we have to be competitive in world markets. We are playing the Boy Scouts while all the other countries are getting behind their producers and assisting them to be competitive, whether it is through subsidies or export enhancement programs that we see here in North
Government Orders
America or some of the subsidies of the European Common Market.
This program was brought in, in 1966, by the the hon. John Pickersgill. He stated that according to the Board of Transport Commissioners these rates were already unremunerative. We decided to keep those rates at the present level and pay compensation for doing so because we felt there was an obligation in the east with regard to the Crow's Nest Pass rate. The purpose was to ensure that we would have rates that would provide some inducement and incentive to shippers to use the facilities of the Atlantic ports.
Even 24 years ago the administration at that time realized full well that we had to have some assistance to those Atlantic ports to ensure a flow of product to the east that provided jobs and opportunities and the continuity of product to keep those mills running over the winter months.
Cancelling this program will only reduce the federal deficit by approximately $40 million. It cannot be said that cancelling a program contributes in a meaningful way to reducing the deficit. I referred to this a moment ago, that it is piecemeal at the very least.
The current tax paid by the agricultural industry is far greater than the total expenditure of the agriculture budget. Agriculture not only pays its way, but it contributes to the fiscal budget in a very positive way and contributes to the balance of trade. We have seen our trade surplus plummet this last fall. I would have to suggest that with the withdrawal of the at and east subsidy it is going to plummet even further.
The government talks about an economy that is competitive. Our producers are competitive here in Canada. We are among the best in the world, the most competitive in terms of productivity.
For example, milk production per cow has gone up 70 per cent in Canada since 1971. During the same period in the United States it rose by only 46 per cent. If we want to judge efficiency by price we look at poultry. We see that while the real farm gate price of poultry has dropped by 30 per cent since the 1970s, the retail price has just dropped by 10 per cent over the same period. Who is the most efficient? Is it the farmers or the food processing industry?

February 12, 1990
Government Orders
In terms of the farm gate chicken price in 1982, it represented 48 per cent of the final cost to the consumer. Now it accounts for only 38 per cent of the cost. Clearly these figures demonstrate that orderly marketing is efficient and contributes to the financial well-being of the Canadian agricultural industry.
Part of the efficiency that we saw here is through the orderly marketing and the ability to move products to market over the full 12 months of the year. That is why this legislation was put in place in the 1966 era.
It served us well and we certainly saw the advantages of it, not just for Ontario or Atlantic Canada.
We saw it for the Canadian Wheat Board. We saw it for the creation of jobs on the prairies. When I consider that it is going to cut this back at a period when our agricultural industry in the prairies perhaps is in a more difficult position that it was in the 1930s, it is unconscionable that we should have cut-backs of this magnitude to a program that has served us so well.
I call on the government at this point to withdraw this legislation and reconsider what it is doing. It has been seven months since the budget and this is the first day that this has been introduced into this House. It has caused pandemonium not only in the transportation industry but in the Canadian and Ontario Wheat Boards which are trying to sell their products not knowing whether or not it applied. It is a piece of legislation that was made retroactive and was followed by a drop in price. It was compounded by another drop in price some six or seven months later when the United States made that huge sale of grain to Russia that was subsidized to the tune of $20.50 a tonne or 56 cents per bushel.
I have to question the wisdom of this move at a time of severe financial difficulty across this country in the rural areas. There are whole communities in western Canada, particularly in Saskatchewan, where businesses are closing because they depend on the agriculture industry. They are the main businesses in those towns and as the agriculture industry faces hardships, those businesses are forced to close as well.
We should be going in the opposite direction. If we are going to compete with our neighbours to the south, the government has an obligation to put the money forward
to assist the farmers to move that grain to market. It should not be left to the primary producers to carry this burden. It is an obligation of the government to assist them. It is an obligation of society because a lot of this product is moving into export, and every export dollar earned contributes to our Canadian economy.
In conclusion, I would ask that the government reconsider this legislation. It should reinstate this program and enhance it to a level that would make us competitive with Americans programs which they are utilizing and are using to steal our markets.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver East, Immigration; the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, Canada Elections Act; the hon. member for Halifax, Violence Against Women.


Rodney Edward Laporte: The at
and east program has been in existence for almost a quarter of a century and in fact has been an important element of the maritime economy. Bill C-26, which will remove the program, means a potential loss of over $27 million to the maritimes and over 250 direct jobs to the economies, primarily of Saint John and Halifax. Not only is it tragic that this program is being removed formally but the way in which the government has handled Bill C-26 reveals a more fundamental principle. The way in which this government has handled the bill displays an arrogance, a conceit and a self-centredness of the PC Party and this government.
Through this bill they have displayed a disrespect for this institution of Parliament. That is simply by the fact that they have implemented this bill, de facto, before the bill has actually been debated in this House. The legislation for at and east is found in the Railway Act. It is a program that encourages export shippers of grain and flour to use eastern ports.
This is a program that affects grain and flour somewhat differently. With respect to grain, the program is applicable to export grain that is shipped by rail from points at lake ports on Georgian Bay, Lake Huron, Lake Ontario and the upper St. Lawrence as far as Prescott and if the rail destination is any port on the St. Lawrence from Montreal east as well as the ports of Saint John and Halifax. With respect to flour the program is applicable if
February 12, 1990

flour is shipped by rail for export from Thunder Bay east, again to the same ports.
This program has evolved so that shippers of grain are charged rates that were in effect in 1960 while flour shippers pay the rate that was in effect in 1966. The difference between those rates and the compensatory rates are paid to the railways by the government.
The hon. minister indicated that the reason for enacting this program was that initially there had been worry about competition from the United States. I can point out to the minister that that is only part of the case. In fact, the Hon. G. W. Pickersgill who was then the Minister of Transport stated when the legislation was under consideration back in the 1960s that it also meant: "To ensure that we will have rates which will provide some inducement and incentive to shippers to use the facilities of Atlantic ports."
In other words, in addition to ensuring that eastern Canadian ports could compete with U.S. ports the at and east rates were also intended to enable the ports of Halifax and Saint John to compete with Montreal and other St. Lawrence River ports. This had the effect of creating and maintaining jobs primarily in the Maritimes. In other words, it was a good regional program.
There is another aspect with respect to the American angle, that is the program offset a geographic advantage that the U.S. has because of shorter hauling distances to ports. With the removal of the at and east, this advantage is gone. There is a real irony here. This government talks so much about creating a level playing field that the term is rapidly becoming a cliche. Yet the government and the PC party seem to have completely forgotten about the level playing field concept with respect to this bill and with respect to regional programs throughout the country.
It may well be that the at and east needs some revision and should be looked at, but by simply cancelling the program the government has forsaken the notion of a level playing field in the maritimes. There seems to have been somewhat of a change of attitude by the government in that it has talked before about creating level playing fields in order to create equality and fairness for Canadians. It is very clear by this and many other examples that this government has no intention of
Government Orders
creating equity and fairness or level playing fields for average Canadians at all.
The government's politics are very transparent. It is purely and simply promoting a 19th century laissez-faire economy-today it is called neo-conservatism-which is simply a philosophy that will allow the rich to stay rich and in fact become richer by stealing more of this country's wealth.
It is a philosophy that benefits the few at the expense of the majority. It is a philosophy that did not work in the 1800s and a philosophy that does not work today in spite of the fancy packaging that this government employs.
The at and east program has become an important part of the diversification of the maritime economy. Any region of the country that depends on one industry is in a very tenuous situation should that industry fail. Although the fishing industry is not the only industry in the maritimes, it has played a vital role in a viable maritime economy.
We all know that industry is now in a very bad way and although the Prime Minister assures us that there is no crisis in the maritimes, I would suggest to the Prime Minister and to the minister that they are trying to ensure that if in fact the maritimes are not quite over the edge, yet they will provide that little extra push with the passage of this bill.
There is a need to encourage and promote diversification in all regions of this country. That has been a fundamental plank of virtually every federal government since Confederation up until the present one. The Prime Minister and the members of his cabinet today have abandoned this fundamental principle, this basic building block to our nation's economy.
I am from Saskatchewan where we have witnessed and felt the cold, harsh reality of PC politics. We in the west have much in common with folks in the maritimes. In our rural communities we have seen our economic base undermined. We have seen our post offices disappearing. We have seen VIA Rail abruptly removed. We have seen services removed for seniors in communities where they can no longer remain, where they have lived all their lives, as in the maritimes. We have seen unemployment figures rise. We have seen people leaving our region of the country and we have seen the growth of food banks and record numbers of people living below the poverty line. In fact, in Saskatchewan now there are more people

February 12, 1990
Government Orders
living below the poverty line than anywhere in Canada, except for Newfoundland, and that is with two Tory governments, federal and provincial.
At the same time, we have been forced to listen to a finance minister who tells us that we have had good economic growth for the last few years but now we have to tighten our belts. I would like to tighten something as well. It would not be a belt, it would be a political noose around the political neck of the government. However, I think the government is doing a very good job of tightening its own noose these days.
The minister may want to tighten our belts, but for the maritimes the government is simply shutting the door with this bill. Without a doubt, this bill hits the maritimes very hard. The Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission has completed several studies into the impact of the at and east.
With all due respect, contrary to the minister's statement that all reports that had come out indicated it was time to remove the at and east, that is not true. The Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission has in fact issued a number of reports. It has concluded that the at and east has had a significant impact on the ports of Halifax and Saint John.
I would point out to the minister that in 1988 some 338,000 tonnes of export grain and 183,000 tonnes of export flour moved through the port of Halifax. Tonnage for Saint John in 1988 was approximately 246,000 tonnes of export grain and 1,200 tonnes of export flour. This represents approximately 90 per cent of the total tonnage that was moved out of the at and east program in 1988.
It is a maritime program. These figures represent almost all the grain handled at the Saint John elevator and approximately 60 per cent of the volume handled at the elevator at Halifax. Now that the program has been implemented, despite not being passed by Parliament, the elevator at Saint John is now going to be closing because it cannot receive grain by water. It can only receive grain by rail, and nobody is shipping grain by rail to Saint John now that the program is gone. So it is costing jobs.
The loss of this program is going to affect more than grain elevators. Port employment will be affected, railway employment will be affected and there will be negative effects on flour millers, particularly Dover Mills in Halifax. I would like to quote from a report that the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission submitted in September 1989. Obviously the minister has not seen it.
In the report it is stated that an analysis by the commission of the regional impact of the program showed that approximately $14.4 million in economic activity will be lost to the region due to the termination of the subsidy. However, should both grain elevators in the region at Halifax and Saint John be unable to continue operations, the negative impact would amount to approximately $27.6 million. These amounts do not include any economic activity generated by the program which occurred outside the Atlantic region such as railway employment, inland elevators, lake vessels, et cetera. It has affected ports in the Ontario region as well.
It goes on to state in the second paragraph on page 3 of this report that the importance of maintaining the Halifax grain elevator as a viable operation is of critical economic importance to the entire Atlantic region. As well as the activity generated by the movement of export grain to the facility, the elevator also plays a vital role in the storage and handling of domestic feed grain and milling wheat.
Local pork, poultry and egg industries and to a lesser extent the beef industries would be seriously affected should the Halifax elevator be unable to remain in operation.
In addition, the Halifax elevator is utilized as the only means of storage for milling wheat by the only Atlantic region flour mill, Dover Flour Mills. If the elevator should close in Halifax, Dover Flour Mills will probably close as well. If the minister does not have all three reports, I will be glad to provide them to her because they are very interesting reading. They provide a good insight into the importance of this program to the maritimes.
The fact that 250 direct jobs will be lost and $27 million will be lost is only one part of it. The secondary impact is going to be just as devastating. I was in the maritimes last fall and had occasion to speak with some farmers in Prince Edward Island. Prince Edward Island has a lot of
February 12, 1990

family farms. There are good family operations which grow potatoes and hay or raise hogs.
These people indicated to me that they rely on western grains because, although they grow about 80 per cent of the feed grains that they use on the island, they still need the high quality grains which come from the west.
I talked the President of Dover Flour Mills a number of times. He indicated that business has dropped some 20 per cent. In fact, Dover has lost all the competitive markets in the world in the face of the loss of this subsidy and because of the high dollar. Dover Flour Mills is simply left with CIDA projects. Canada is reducing subsidies at the same time that the U.S. is putting on subsidies.
According to the government, the free trade agreement was going to be of benefit to Canada because it would open up agricultural markets for Canadians. Although Americans have been talking of no subsidies in public, certainly officials have been telling me in private-and I am sure the government-that subsidies will remain high and perhaps get even higher.
We have seen the attack that the U.S. has levelled against Canadian agriculture. It used GATT to obtain entrance for its dairy products into Canada. It countervailed and is using harassing tactics to keep Canadians hogs and pork out of the U.S. It is threatening an attack on the use of the Western Grain Transportation Act, that is if this government does not remove it first.
What have we done in response? What did Canada do when George Bush put forward a budget calling for some $900 million for export grain subsidies and attacked our conventional markets? The U.S.S.R. has indicated it is going to buy some 12 million tonnes of grain this year and the United States has announced that it will subsidize up to three million tonnes which go to the U.S.S.R. That is a direct effect on Canada's market. What has this government done? Nothing. The government is monitoring the situation.
What is the possible logic behind this? There is no logic, if you believe in fair opportunities for Canadians in all regions of the country. There is no logic, if you believe in maintaining and promoting viable communities with viable industries in all areas of Canada. In fact,
Government Orders
the direction this government is taking is purely and simply counterproductive to a viable, healthy economy.
It is a joke that this is supposed to be a government and a party which has the answers to the economic problems of this country. The government's answers may be beneficial for the Conrad Blacks of the world in assisting them to devour more and more of this country's wealth, but they certainly do nothing for the average Canadian.
In fact, I find it insulting and I am sure many Canadians find it insulting when the finance minister says that we have just come through good times. I think most Canadians will agree that the success of a nation is not measured by how many millionaires we have, how many domed stadiums we possess or how many Canadians can afford to travel to exotic places.
Rather, I believe that most Canadians would measure this country's success by how few homeless we have, how few people we have living below the poverty line and how few people need to use food banks. That is how success ought to be measured. In using this measurement for this government, it is quite clear that the government has failed and it has failed very badly, not for the Conrad Blacks but for average Canadians.
Yet this government is not reluctant to remove some $27 million annually and some 250 direct jobs from the maritimes. The indirect impact, as discussed earlier, will have a much broader impact to all comers of the maritimes. In addition, I have been advised that CP Rail line which goes to Saint John may no longer be viable now that the Saint John elevator is closed and the tonnage will no longer be coming.
Not only will the maritimes suffer, but this bill will have a ripple effect right across the country. Port McNicoll, Ontario, has been shut. In talking with the Canadian Wheat Board the other day they indicated that they used to send some 300,000 tonnes of grain every year through the port of Halifax alone. Now that has been reduced to something like 100,000 tonnes a year, and it may disappear altogether. They have a concern because if the port of Halifax closes-now that the port of Saint John has closed-there will be no ice free ports on the eastern seaboard in Canada. There will be none.

February 12, 1990
Government Orders
The Canadian Wheat Board has indicated that some purchasers of grain do not want to come into Montreal, even though it is kept open during the year, because of the ice. In fact, Cuba is a good example. Presently Cuba is buying some grain from Canada and is using Halifax port to pick up that grain.
The Canadian Wheat Board has indicated to me that all things being equal, if the Halifax port is no longer there Cuba may go somewhere else. We will be losing grain sales which we can ill afford to lose, which we are losing at a high number right now and as a result of which we are threatened in our traditional markets. We are going to shoot ourselves in the foot by closing these two ports.
The people in the maritimes have long appreciated this program. They have also been concerned about the cost of the program and ensuring that the federal government was receiving its money's worth. In fact, in 1985, as I indicated earlier, the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission presented two briefs to this government. It outlined an alternative to the existing program.
Contrary to what the minister says, there have been briefs presented that do not want the program removed. They outline an alternative to the existing program. They did not propose to cancel the program but proposed changes to the program that would cut the cost of the program in half.
They volunteered this in 1985 when the program was costing between $34 million and $40 million. They presented a proposal that would save the government $20 million a year. The government ignored it. There were changes that they said would cut the program in half without eliminating any aspect of the program while maintaining a vital maritime economy. What do you suppose was the government's response to this well thought out proposal? What do you suppose the government said to the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission?
I and my fellow colleagues have been reminded numerous times by various ministers of this government's commitment to consultation. I and my colleagues have been told in sometimes not very flattering terms that when we have accused the government of not only not consulting with Canadians but not paying attention to Canadians, this government does consult. They point
out that this government is one that pays attention to Canadians' needs, that it defines and develops programs for the benefit of all Canadians. Therefore, I would assume that it would at least take this proposal seriously.
The Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission is not a fly-by-night group. It is a longstanding, very well respected organization representing a cross section of Atlantic Canada. It presented not just one brief in 1985, but two well documented, well thought out briefs in which it outlined how the government could change the at and east program and save $20 million a year.
What sort of response did it get from this considerate government? It could be summed up in one sentence from the third report that it submitted last September. The APTC, the commission, has never received a response to the proposals from the federal government. It never received a response, not even a peep, not so much as a whisper.
It is not that the government read the report and called representatives in to explain the proposal in detail, that it asked them to make changes, or that it acknowledged that it received the report and would be considering it. They never received a response, not even a thank you letter.
The minister has indicated that there has been no proposal that the At and East program remain. By not repsonding to these well thought out presentations, the government is displaying its arrogance. It is displaying the fact that it has lost touch with the real people of this country. In short, this government is displaying the fact that it simply does not give a damn for anyone or any group that does not agree with this government. It does not matter if you are a potato farmer in P.E.I., it does not matter if you are a lawyer in Halifax or if you are the president of the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission.
Not only is this government arrogant to the people of Canada, it has been disrespectful to Parliament, disrespectful because it has already enacted Bill C-26 without the approval of Parliament. That is nothing new, it has already invoked closure 11 times, more times than any other government in the history of this country.
By taking this most unfortunate step the government has almost guaranteed that there would be no changes whatsoever to this bill at any stage. The reason is very
February 12, 1990

clear that if Parliament should decide not to enact this bill or to enact another bill that would maintain the program, the government may well find that it is liable to the tune of millions of dollars for the way that people have been responding given the de facto actions of the Department of Transport.
On May 4, 1989, Transport Canada officials held a meeting with shippers and the railways to advise them that the at and east program rates would terminate effective July 15, 1989, and that on all contracts commencing on July 16 they were to charge compensatory rates.
Parliament has not passed any such legislation. In fact if any interested parties should decide to challenge this decision, I am quite sure now that they would be successful and could force the government to actually follow the law. Fortunately for this government no challenge has come forward.
If it should ever come to pass that Parliament should enact the law that is different than what is proposed in Bill C-26, then we may find that an at and east program still exists. If that should come to pass and certain businesses take this government at its word-which is a mistake-and found that they had relied on false assumptions and as a result have suffered significant losses, I suggest that the Department of Transport would find itself in a severe legal position.
As such the government is, to say the least, going to be extremely reluctant to amend any aspect of this bill. The government will argue that there is a retroactive clause and that Bill C-26 can pass validly. It is not uncommon to have retroactive legislation. These, however, are usual with respect to tax matters which are often made retroactive to budget night in order to prevent avoidance by taxpayers during the period between the budget and the date of the enactment of the law.
It is held, however, that this power to enact retroactive laws must be exercised with appropriate restraint. It is unfortunate that this government is acting with reckless abandon. I would suggest that a distinction can be made between the tax legislation which is by its nature subject to ongoing modification and a situation such as that represented by this bill before the House today. Termination of a longstanding subsidy program is having a
Government Orders
serious economic dislocation for the affected areas, namely Saint John and Halifax.
As well, this government has been further inconsiderate of Parliament as an institution by not bringing this matter before Parliament before now. It has been eight months since Bill C-26 was given first reading and seven months since it was enforced de facto.
I believe this government has displayed a callous disregard for Parliament. As a result of this action the work of the legislative committee will be very difficult. It could well be that once the alternatives suggested by the commission are looked at and given serious attention, which they obviously have not been given until now, there may well be alternatives forthcoming to this present bill. If the government agrees to these changes it will be difficult to enact them because of the action it has taken to date.
In conclusion, this is a bill that displays the government's lack of commitment for regional development. If the government did consult, if it was considerate, it would be having serious discussions with these groups. It would be having discussions with the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission.
There are other groups which it should have consulted in considering its program. There is Dover Flour Mill in Halifax, the port of Saint John, the city of Saint John, the Canadian Feed Industry Association which is going to be affected by this bill, the Halifax grain elevator, the Halifax Port Commission, the Nova Scotia Grains Commission, the Nova Scotia Grain Marketing Board, the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture, and the Maritime Farmers Council. They are all very concerned about the loss of this program because it is very likely going to mean the loss of the elevators at Halifax and Saint John.
As the Canadian Wheat Board indicated, the elevator at Halifax, which can receive grain by water, will have difficulty bringing out a shipload of grain because it cannot buy a full allotment at one time. At Halifax the elevator has been buying feed grain and the Canadian Wheat Board has been topping this up in order to get a full shipment out. If the Canadian Wheat Board should decide not to send grain to Halifax that will be the end of the Halifax elevator, it will be finished.

February 12, 1990
Government Orders
The Dover Flour Mill uses the Halifax elevator as a storage facility for the grain used for its flour. If the elevator closes, the Dover Flour Mill will be unable to take over the Halifax elevator because it would not be economically viable, and mill will close. The Dover Flour Mill is the only flour mill that exists in Atlantic Canada because of this program. It has now been placed in jeopardy.
As well, the ripple effect through the whole agricultural community in the maritimes is devastating, not to mention the dock workers who are employed for the movement of flour, but also the rail crews that are now being eliminated. There are 250 direct jobs and numerous indirect jobs which will be lost.
This bill will rob the maritimes of at least $27 million and 250 jobs directly, not mention the spin-off affect. It is tragic, that this government did not take the time to consult with the people of the maritimes. It is tragic that it did not consider the proposal of the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission five years ago. In 1985 it presented an alternative that would save the government $20 million a year, which would have amounted to a $100 million now. It is unfortunate that this government did not consider that report some five years ago.
I call upon the government to stop its actions, to announce that the at and east program will continue and to take a serious look at the commission's reports. It put together not one but three reports. It called for this government to make changes. It volunteered changes to the at and east payments. The commission said that changes should be happening and suggested how it should be done.
This bill makes it very clear that the government has no regard for the average people of this country or the constitution of Parliament. It is a government that has lost touch with the people. There is a good news and a bad news aspect to this whole thing. The goods news is that the people of Canada realize that this is the kind of attitude this government has taken and they are going to toss this government out on its ear. The bad news is that we have to wait two and a half years. The good news is that tonight in the riding of Chambly we are going to start that process by electing our first New Democratic
member of Parliament in the history of the province of Quebec.
I call on this government to reconsider its bill. I call on this government to look at the commission's report. I call on this government to take seriously the issues that are of concern to the people of the maritimes, such as economics. I call on this government to look seriously at this bill and to make some real changes to the at and east program so that we can maintain a viable economic situation, so that we can maintain the viable infrastructure that has existed for 25 years in the maritimes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Under Standing Order 74 the first three speakers had 40 minutes for debate. There were no questions or comments. We are now entering the period when there will be 20 minute speeches with ten minutes for questions and comments. The hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to rise and comment on Bill C-26, the bill which gives effect to the cancellation of the at and east program announced in the April 27, 1989 budget.
May I echo, as an Atlantic Canadian, the words of those who have spoken before me, at least the two members who come from the opposition side of the House, that indeed the cancellation of this program is yet another blow at the fragile economy of Atlantic Canada. It is a blow that is being delivered at a time when our people and our economy lay shattered from one bad news scenario after another.
We had massive route abandonment on the railways in Atlantic Canada. The loss of the at and east contributes even further to the lack of viability of the railways in Atlantic Canada. Our fishery has been under incredible, heretofore unimagined assault. Individuals, fishing communities and, indeed, the economy indirectly all the way back to the major suppliers at the major centres are reeling under that blow.
We have had a 39 per cent reduction over the last five years of regional development spending in Atlantic Canada, an abandonment of the principle of combating regional disparity. In the agricultural sector, which is perhaps in some respects most fragile in all of Canada in the Atlantic region, we have had the cancellation, completely without consultation, completely without discussing the impact with anybody, of the at and east
February 12, 1990

program, a program that has been around for approximately 25 years.
A program, yes, with faults, but one that has been veiy successful in contributing to the orderly marketing and export of grains in the region. Perhaps most frustrating is not that this program was cancelled completely without consultation with anybody in Atlantic Canada, or with anybody in the agricultural community across this country, because it impacts very directly on the farmers of Ontario and western Canada, but the fact that, although notice was given last April 27 of the cancellation of this program, it is only today, February 12, 1990, that the legislation giving effect to that cancellation is before the House.
Most Canadians who are not familiar with the at and east are saying, "Well, at least you had all that notice to get ready for the impact of the loss of that subsidy. At least you had time to contemplate it, time to make your case and time to prepare for the bill going to a legislative committee of Parliament, the Standing Committee of Transport, time for the people of Atlantic Canada to lobby their MPs and ministers of the Crown, time for Atlantic provincial governments to make their case and to come to Ottawa and ensure that their voices were heard". That is what the average Canadian watching these proceedings believes to be the case.
The reality is that Parliament is only today, for the first time, debating the ramifications of this bill and the loss of this program. The fact is that the cuts have already been put in place by the railways, that the impact of the loss of the at and east has been factored into the pricing arrangements of the railways for the last number of months. It is a fait accomplis. It has happened.
This Parliament is not even a rubber stamp under this government's administration. This Parliament has become a joke. It is irrelevant. Is it any wonder that people are screaming for a different kind of system, a different kind of Parliament, a Senate where every province is equal, a Senate that has the capability, when rights have been crushed, to veto the actions of the elected Parliament in a substantial and meaningful way.
This system has made a mockery of the notion that the people of Atlantic Canada have democratic rights. We had an announcement in April of 1989, we had immedi-
Govemment Orders
ate implementation, and seven or eight months later we are asked to consider it in Parliament. This Parliament, with its stained glass windows, its rich decoration and its wonderful ornamentation is nothing but a farce in so far as the people of Atlantic Canada are concerned when we have before us a bill for consideration that has already been implemented months ago.
We have not even put it to committee yet. Parliament has not said whether it favours or does not favour the bill. Parliament has not yet said whether this bill ought to be amended, changed substantially or passed exactly as it is. Parliament has made no comment. Yet, the at and east is gone. The new rates for grain have already been implemented and like a crowd of fools, every single one of us, without exception, stands here today and wastes the time and money of the people of Canada.
This Parliament has degenerated into farce under this administration. This bill is the latest example of that contempt for democratic norms being exercised by this government.
You have before you, Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege, a suggestion by a member of this place that the privileges and the rules of this institution have been breached by having this bill come for consideration after the fact.
Mr. Speaker, I respect the position of the Chair. I always, even on those days when I am disappointed with the ruling of the Chair, adhere to that ruling. I submit to you with great respect, Mr. Speaker, that you have before you a question of privilege which we in this party shall support. It is a question of privilege that will not only answer the question of whether or not the government has proceeded properly in bringing us a bill, looking for our approval after the fact, but will determine, in the final analysis, whether the people of Canada should have any respect for this institution whatsoever. It will tell us whether this is nothing but a glorified showcase for partisan points of view on both sides.
It will tell us whether or not, in the last analysis, there is taxation with representation in this land, or whether we have evolved into a presidential style of government where the Prime Minister deigns from time to time to come here and answer a few questions in Question Period. But, otherwise, we have a dictatorial majority government operating with contempt for the views of the

February 12, 1990
Government Orders
people of Canada and contempt for the properly elected representatives of the people of Canada.
If you listen carefully, Mr. Speaker, you can hear in the silence in this place on occasion when none of us are present, the sound of jackboots.
There is an old saying that Canadians ultimately get the government they deserve. I think Canadians deserve better than this government. Ministers opposite may laugh.


Mr. McDermid:: Well, you're being so foolish.


Brian Vincent Tobin: As they drive around in their chauffeured limousines, and as they leave this place and have their coats passed to them and their boots slipped on by their assistants, and as they are carried off to their offices and told: "Yes, minister, no minister", and brought their cup of tea, and as their hats get increasingly too small and require ever larger pieces of felt to cover their brains, they may believe that they have some divine right to rule unimpeded without the difficulties of dealing with parliamentary tradition and without having to listen to the little people of Canada, who from time to time like to comment on what is happening to them. They may believe that but the people of Canada do not believe that and the people of Canada are not going to stand for this dictatorial politburo-like approach to this country.
It is an incredibly sad day. We have in eastern Europe great reform taking place. We have in eastern Europe celebration of the notion of a multi-party state. They are celebrating the possibility of having governments that are accountable to the people whom supposedly they serve. They are celebrating the possibility of governments which actually may be elected by the people they serve. While no less a person than the Prime Minister celebrates, in his deep melodious tones, this great evolution in eastern Europe, here in this Parliament when rights are squandered, ministers opposite laugh.
Ministers opposite would like to say this is exaggeration. But was it not the Speaker of the Elouse of Commons who was forced to rule only a few months ago that advertising conducted by the government saying: "This is your GST, here is what is going to happen, save this ad" was in contempt of Parliament? Did not the
Speaker of the House of Commons say that that was contemptuous of Parliament and of the people of Canada? Of course he did.
What is the difference between advertising the GST as being passed before it was considered by this place and not just advertising, but implementing, a cancellation of at and east before we have ever seen the bill? The contempt is equal. For the people of Atlantic Canada the ruling of the Chair is fundamental.
It is not fundamental to whether or not Atlantic Canada is going to be treated properly, not to whether there is a sensitivity to the devastating impact of this bill on the region, indeed on farmers in Ontario as well, but to whether this Canada, this federation of peoples and provinces, this experiment in democracy, this lesson to the world of how a nation should govern itself, is as pristine and as pure we would like to believe it is.
Let the government be put on notice that this bill will get no easy ride in this Parliament or in committee. We, in the Liberal Party of Canada, the Official Opposition, I hope joined by my colleagues in the other opposition party, will do everything in our power to ensure that justice is not only done but is seen to be done and that the people of Canada know we will stop this meltdown of our democratic institutions by the government opposite.
What has happened as a result of this bill? First, there was no consultation with the region or with agricultural organizations right across Canada. None whatsoever. What has happened? The Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission recommended changes to the bill, as was pointed out by the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. It made recommendations as to how the at and east could save up to 50 per cent of the cost of the program and got absolutely no response from these great believers in democracy opposite. Nothing but the sound of silence followed the recommendation and representations of the business community as represented by the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission in Atlantic Canada. What a singular act of contempt to not even bother to write back and say: "No or yes, bad idea or good idea". There was absolutely nothing. What has happened?
February 12, 1990


John Horton McDermid: He's choking on his own words.


Brian Vincent Tobin: No, I'm not choking on my own words, I'm choking at the spectacle of the minister opposite sitting there with a sly grin on his face assuming that the pain, passion, frustration and anger of the people of Atlantic Canada is nothing but a joke on a Monday afternoon.


John Horton McDermid: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Brian Vincent Tobin: He has come awake, Mr. Speaker. He has risen from his slumber.


John Horton McDermid: I am sure the hon. member would not want to impugn motives. The minister was not smirking or smiling or making any gestures at the time. The hon. member has the habit of, shall I say, expanding on some of his comments in the House of Commons. All I ask is for him to be fair and honest. He knows full well that the minister at whom he was pointing and the other ministers in this House were not smiling or smirking at anything that was going on in Atlantic Canada. He knows that and I ask him to be fair and honest in his debate in this House.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, for a good part of my speech the hon. minister opposite more resembled a jackal than a member of Parliament, in terms of his response to what I was saying. In the interest of being fair, it is passing strange that the minister, because he is here, has the right to stand, defend himself, and put forward another point of view, but the people of Atlantic Canada, whose representations were not even acknowledged let alone responded to, are at home today having still not received a response from this minister's government to their proposals which are now four years old. This goes back to 1985. They received not a word, Mr. Speaker.
It is not the people of Atlantic Canada who are ignored, it is not the 250 workers who are going to be laid off, it is not the grain elevator lost in Saint John, it is not the grain elevator that is now closing down in Georgian Bay, Ontario, it is not the loss of a fragile agricultural community that is offended; it is the minister opposite who is offended. He has been terribly offended. How dare we, in the name of democracy and the people of Atlantic Canada, toss insults his way.
Government Orders
What kind of priority does this government have? One lays out the case and states the facts, which the minister has not denied. But the minister does not get up and say: "I have news for you, we are going to consult", or "I have news for you, we are going to withdraw this bill because the process was not right", or "I have news for you, I agree it is a contempt of Parliament to implement the bill before it was even introduced. We are going to do something. I am on my way to Atlantic Canada. I have arranged meetings. I have booked the airplane". He gets up and says, "I want the member to be fair and not say nasty things about me". Well, I have to tell the minister opposite that in the list of people for whom I have compassion, the minister is very close to the bottom.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Now they are waking up, now they are coming alive, now they are pretending they are members of Parliament and not trained seals.
What has happened as a consequence of this government's bill? What has the government done? We now have the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission making recommendations. It is saying that it has accepted that the government is not going to talk to it. It has accepted that the government is not going to listen to it. It has accepted that the government is not going to withdraw the bill and it has accepted that the government, like a bull in a china shop, is going to destroy everything in its wake. It asks that the government now at least consider proposals it has made to be implemented after the fact.
What are those proposals? The minister is shaking his hand at me. He has his finger out and is pointing it. He is gritting his teeth. Is there something you want to say?


Mr. Belsher:: He's not doing any of that.


Brian Vincent Tobin: He certainly was doing that. If the member opposite was not asleep he would have seen it. If the minister wants to get to his feet and say something, I will cede my time.


Mr. Andre:: You're such a fool, Tobin. Quit embarrassing yourself. You're embarrassing yourself and this chamber.

February 12, 1990
Government Orders


Brian Vincent Tobin: Oh, Mr. Speaker, we have that other great friend of Atlantic Canada, the minister of postal closings, now joining the fray. The minister for privatization and postal closings has just come awake.
Mr. Speaker, what recommendations have been made by the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission? It recommended the use of unit trains from Thunder Bay or direct from prairie origins to move export grain to both Saint John and Halifax. It has asked that the government permit the use of water transport to Halifax and Saint John for Plan C feed grain.
Now get this, Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission has asked for the elimination of the countervail duty on U.S. com. Canada has imposed countervail on U.S. com coming into Canada because that corn is subsidized and we have said that if it is subsidized we are going to put a countervail on it. One result of the actions of this government is there is now an agency in Atlantic Canada lobbying the Government of Canada to take a countervail off U.S. corn, putting our own farmers at a disadvantage as a result, because they are desperate to survive, given the cancellation of the at and east.
What else have they been forced to ask for? They have asked for the provision of permits allowing the importation of feed grains from foreign countries. Atlantic Canadians have been forced, number one, to ask their government to take the countervail off U.S. corn coming into Canada. That is sad, because the at and east is gone. Second, Atlantic Canadians are now asking their government to allow the import of foreign grains into Canada. The government has made the possibility of continuing to be served in Atlantic Canada by Quebec and Ontario so uneconomic, so enviable that we now want to put Canadian farmers out of business by importing foreign grain.
Is that what we want in this country? That is not what we want in Atlantic Canada. Atlantic Canada wants to remain a part of this country and wants to continue to do business with the farmers of Quebec and Ontario. It does not want to lobby for countervail being removed from U.S. products and does not want to import products from outside this country when we can get them right here. When you take a region and cut it off at the knees, when you eliminate a subsidy that makes business possible between Quebec and Ontario, and Atlantic Canada, you
cannot expect people to lie down and play dead. You actually force them to ask for measures that are not in the best interests in the long term of Canada.
I ask this government, for all the reasons I have mentioned, to reconsider this bill, to reconsider the impact on the region and, indeed, on farmers in Quebec and Ontario. I ask this government to withdraw the bill, to have a proper consultation process. I serve notice that failure to do that will meet with an extremely rough ride for this piece of legislation in the appropriate legislative committee, in this case the Standing Committee on Transport.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I agree entirely with the position taken by the member from Newfoundland. Talk about kicking a victim when it is down. In relation to the real impact of this change, I wonder if the member would comment on the two or three areas he mentioned that are really going to be impacted by the imposition of this change in the at and east rates, and also on the effect of it, not only on the elevators and the flour mills but on other parts of the maritimes as well as the west and Ontario.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I think we could remind ourselves of the stated purpose of this bill when it was introduced by the Hon. Jack Pickersgill, then a Newfoundland member of Parliament, in 1966. He said that the purpose of the at and east was to ensure that eastern Canadian ports could compete with U.S. ports, to enable the ports of Halifax and Saint John to compete with Montreal and other St. Lawrence River ports and to provide for the orderly marketing of grain.


John Horton McDermid: It's a subsidy.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The minister opposite says that it is a subsidy as though "subsidy" were a dirty word.
The reality is that in addition to the loss of the elevator at Saint John, which has already been announced, and the loss of the elevator on Georgian Bay at Port McNicoll, it has called into question the continued viability of the elevator and flour mill at Halifax. By extension, it probably will result in increased input costs for farmers in the Atlantic region who, in many instances, are completely on the edge of viability. Farmers who, with any substantial increase whatsoever, are going to be out of business. Hence the ability of the Atlantic region, in some measure, to maintain an agricultural industry and to feed itself.
February 12, 1990

Another impact that I am sure is not unknown to the government is that with the loss of the at and east subsidy and subsequent loss of business, it is not only probable but likely that we are going to see additional pressure brought to bear by CN and by CP, but primarily by CN, for additional rail line abandonment in Atlantic Canada. With the exception of a couple of runs we have totally lost the VIA Rail traffic. Over the years we have seen the loss of many of the CN freight routes. Newfoundland and P.E.I. are gone entirely. CN has indicated that it wants to abandon more routes.
The loss of the subsidy will increase pressure in that regard as well. Fundamentally the transportation infrastructure of the region, which is sparsely populated but relatively large, is being torn away. Frankly we all know the backbone of any economy, in particular a rural economy, has got to be good transportation infrastructure. That is being destroyed, and this bill contributes significantly to that destruction.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague if he has looked at the principle behind this particular bill as being closely related to the Western Grain Transportation Act. Of course in a country as huge, beautiful and diverse as what we have here, the corollary is the huge transportation and shipping costs. Ever since Confederation, and even before that, we have always worked as Canadians to build this country from east to west and to bring in programs that would make one section available to another section. In this case it is to make western grain available to eastern Canada.
I wonder if he sees this particular bill as another move by this administration toward a north-south relationship and to cut Atlantic Canada adrift from the rest of Canada and make it rely on imported grain from the United States or other countries.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex said it very well. The fact of the matter is that we have had the movement of western and central Canadian grain into Atlantic Canada. From the west Ontario is the east, but from where I live Ontario is the centre. The loss of the at and east is going to cause that movement to subside substantially.
Government Orders
I do not blame the organization in question. However, I think it is sad when the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission is reduced to petitioning the Government of Canada to remove a countervail that properly has been placed against U.S. com. It is being done not because there is any desire to replace U.S. com with Canadian com, but because the underpinnings, the infrastructure in the region, has been stripped away by this government and the region is desperate.
It is equally sad when the commission, seeing the ability to move western grain into eastern ports being destroyed, is forced to ask the Government of Canada to allow the import of foreign grains over Canadian grains, thus displacing Canadian farmers. It is not done out of any lack of loyalty to the country or out of any lack of desire to continue the trade and commerce between the regions. It is done because there is no choice. Of course we are seeing powerful forces working to increase the north-south pull in the Atlantic regions. There are powerful forces at work in eliminating the east-south trade in the Atlantic region. That cannot be good for national unity.
When we have one region of the country as a consequence of the policy of the government being forced to petition the Government of Canada to remove a countervail on U.S. com, at a time when another region of the country, in this case Ontario farmers, have successfully made a case for that countervail in the first place, then government policies are not contributing to national unity. They are contributing to a set of circumstances which are eating away at the glue that holds the country together and rending the fabric that holds this country together.
What is tragic is that those policies and the effect of those policies are probably not even by design. They are by accident. The government has no idea what it is doing, beyond being concerned about the bottom line and saving, relatively speaking, a pittance. Beyond the bottom line there is no understanding of what the consequences are for Canada and what the impact is on the notion that we live in one country and that we share trade, develop common values, and find ways to bind us together.
This bill contributes toward the destruction of national unity in this country.

February 12, 1990
Government Orders


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join in the debate this afternoon on Bill C-26, an act to amend the Railway Act, which really boils down to the destruction of the at and east rail freight rate program.
whole communities being destroyed. If we look at the response of groups like the Atlantic farm organizations, we see that they are certainly not pleased with this action by the government.
The members who have spoken before me have outlined some of the problems with this bill, especially with respect to how it impacts on the farmers in Atlantic Canada, on grain elevators in the Georgian Bay ports, and so on.
We have to look at this bill in terms of what the government is doing, that is doing away with unilaterally support programs for agriculture in Canada. That is the genesis of the bill.
The bill really results from a budget last spring which essentially said "we are going to cut government support programs to agriculture". We did not know at that time how devastating those cuts would be because it seemed like the government was talking about $500 million over the next two years. In fact it is much more than that if we count the Western Grain Stabilization Act and the Special Canadian Grains Program, which are needed just as desperately today as they were in the past two or three years. We see that the government is really withdrawing from agriculture to the tune of some $2.5 billion.
This bill before us today is part of that act of withdrawing some $500 million. The actual cost of the support program for grain and flour transportation under the at and east is some $60 million.
If we look at our competition, the people with whom we compete in the world, we see the United States increasing its support programs for transportation, loan rates for grains and so on, but most of all support programs for exports. Some $900 million will be provided in support programs to take away markets from Canadian producers in Russia, China, the Middle East, Africa and so on. The United States is continuing to wage war on Canadian agricultural producers. This support program is only one small part of that withdrawal by the government, but it is certainly important to our producers. It is extremely important to Atlantic farmers and to the Atlantic economy.
This is at a time when the Atlantic economy is being slaughtered not only by government programs but by the government's maintenance of the fishery. We see nightly on television those programs being withdrawn. We see
As I said, this measure involves only some $60 million, but it is a very important support program. It is part of that $500 million that was withdrawn which involves crop insurance, $200 million; the rail branch line rehabilitation program, $48 million; grain and crop advance payment program, for which we fought hard in the House last fall; the dairy export program; the commodity based loan program; the Canadian Dairy Commission program; and the rebate on fuel tax for agriculture amounting to $500 million over the next two years.
We keep hearing that the incoming budget is to be even more Draconian than the one we have seen so far.
After I read this in the budget I had an opportunity to hear representations from the Maritime Farmers Council. The council wrote a letter to me in June of this year in which it estimates that the additional cost for livestock and poultry milling wheat will be some $9,120,000 or $21 per tonne for the 400,000 tonnes of prairie grain and Ontario com which is imported into the Atlantic region each year.
I wrote to the Minister of Agriculture to ask him to withdraw this action in view of the very adverse impact it would have on Canadian agriculture, especially in Atlantic Canada. It was very interesting that the minister took several months to reply. When he did he simply said that the program was not necessary any longer and that it no longer serves its original purpose. Thus the decision was made to conclude it as of July 15. Several members have already argued strenuously that that is a unilateral decision. The legislation is there. The government has no authority to withdraw its legislation on the books. It should not be withdrawn.
Interestingly enough, I wrote back to the minister and said clearly that one of the original purposes of the program was to assist Atlantic farmers in having a more realistic price for their livestock feeds. The minister wrote back and said he recognized that the maintenance of water transportation of feed grain in the Atlantic region was crucial and that the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds would be announcing measures to


February 12, 1990

that effect in the near future. That was in a letter from the Minister of Agriculture on December 13.
I wrote immediately to the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds to see what he was going to be announcing to assist these producers in Atlantic Canada. So far we have heard nothing. One begins to wonder whether there is anything there. Clearly there does not seem to be any action by the government to support Atlantic agriculture even though the maritime farmers group has outlined the extremely adverse impact that the removal of this support program would have on their industry.
We only have to look from there to the figures that point out the economic impact of the removal of the at and east program. A statement provided to members gives an outline of what the impact will be at the Halifax and Saint John elevators. In the grain elevators and flour mill the impact in dollars is some $5,446,000. This includes the wages and benefits paid to elevator employees in Saint John and Halifax, local goods and services purchased by elevators, and the capital cost of storage facilities of the flour mill.
It is my understanding that already the Saint John elevator has signalled its closure. One wonders whether Halifax can be far behind.
With regard to additional costs of livestock and poultry feed, I have already mentioned that the impact of that is outlined by the farm groups in Atlantic Canada at some $9.12 million. That is a major new cost to those producers. The minister has said: "We are going to announce some program to compensate for that". He has turned that over to the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds and so far there has been no announcement in that regard. Not only do we see a reduced economic impact in Atlantic Canada, but we see hardship for the agricultural producers there.
The third item is the economic impact of this bill. As outlined, it is on the estimated cost of ports and railways. Based on the data supplied by Ports Canada for wages of longshoremen, train crews, switching crews, freight handlers and ports costs, it is estimated that those costs will be $13,084,000. This is an area that has not only been hard pressed by cut-backs in fishing quotas but also cut-backs in VIA Rail and the removal of Department of
Government Orders
National Defence installations. The total economic impact of this support program is some $27 million, which is an estimate by the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission.
We see a Draconian measure here that not only has an extremely adverse impact on agriculture in Atlantic Canada but on the general economy in the port cities of Saint John and Halifax.
This is a general withdrawal by the government of its support programs. I do not think there has ever been a time in our history when agriculture has faced such dismal prospects in terms of net farm income or uncertainty due to the government's actions.
If we look at the net farm income for the prairie provinces, we see that next year Saskatchewan faces a negative net farm income of some $9 million, down from over $1 billion in this past year. The government, in its Green Paper on agriculture, has said that its policy is to remove support programs. We have seen this in the budget. This measure is part of the program to open up markets and to destroy marketing boards.
Interestingly enough, the government talks about regional sensitivity. Nothing could be further from the truth. If we destroy marketing boards, as is certainly in the cards judging by the way the government is moving, the dairy and poultry industries in Atlantic Canada will surely be destroyed. The same is true if we take away support programs like the at and east rate which is so helpful in terms of transportation.
This bill is part of an over-all scheme of the government as outlined in its Green Paper, which will be extremely harmful to all parts of the country.
Today in the House the Minister of Agriculture was talking about what action he would take under the free trade deal. Clearly the relationship with the United States, our largest trading partner in agriculture, has never been in such a deplorable state. We have the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Yeutter, providing some $900 million in the export enhancement program to steal away markets from Canadian agricultural wheat and grain producers in western Canada. He is providing subsidies of $20 a tonne and more to those markets in China and Russia which are our traditional customers.

Government Orders
If we look at Article 701.4 of the free trade deal we see that it states:
Each Party shall take into account the export interests of the other
Party in the use of any export subsidy on any agricultural goods
exported to third countries, recognizing that such subsidies may have
prejudicial effects on the export interests of the other Party.
That is what I am talking about.
The U.S. is putting in place a $900 million export subsidy program while we are removing support programs for our industry. What could be more absurd than the actions we see? Clearly the government is unilaterally pulling away the underpinning, the support programs, while at the same time the Americans are dramatically reinforcing and increasing their programs over the next seven years to the tune of almost a billion dollars.
We do not only have to look at the grain industry which includes wheat, barley and other grain commodities for which our markets are being raided by the United States. Let us look at the arrangement we have seen in the pork countervail case of last September. The Prime Minister promised that the United States countervail law, the dumping duty law, could not apply to Canada, period. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Last September the United States imposed a countervail duty which in 15 months' time could be increased dramatically from 8 cents a kilo to two or three times that as a result of our support programs in Canada. We see an industry which is in very severe decline because of the threat of that countervail. The Prime Minister's promise that the United States trade law could not apply to Canada, period, is really hollow to those producers.
In the Green Paper the minister talks about regional sensitivity and about maintaining a viable agricultural industry in Atlantic Canada. If the decision on ice cream and yogurt brought down by the GATT panel last November and accepted by this government is implemented at the end of the GATT negotiations this year, clearly our whole market for processed dairy products- some 60 per cent of our entire production-will be open to imports from the United States. This will have a very adverse negative impact on regional agriculture, especially in Ontario and Quebec but just as much in Atlantic Canada.
The Minister of Agriculture in a speech he made last week complained about harassment by the United States of our beef industry and our exports to the United States. The U.S. government has dramatically increased the number of inspections of our exports. He talked about increasing the inspection fees in the U.S. from $100 to $700.
The free trade deal was supposed to solve the problems caused by non-tariff barriers, export enhancement subsidies, and pork countervail. It was supposed to preserve supply management and marketing boards. Clearly none of that has happened.
Our trade problems in agriculture have increased dramatically. The United States is demanding total access to our markets, for example in the area of ice cream and yogurt, markets to which it has not had access before because of tariffs. Those tariffs are coming off. At the same time the U.S. is restricting access to its markets, whether it is in pork, beef or whatever.
We have a government that is unilaterally cutting its own throat, cutting the throat of agriculture in Canada, by reducing support programs while at the same time the United States is dramatically increasing its support programs. It is little wonder that agriculture in this country is facing the greatest uncertainty that it ever has in the past.
The government has fumbled the ball in the free trade deal. Everything is falling apart under that arrangement-the marketing boards, the countervails on pork and the export subsidies on grain by the U.S. The bill before us tonight is part of a decline in support for agriculture at a time when the industry desperately needs the support. While we are cutting back unilaterally the United States and other countries are maintaining their full force in support of agriculture.
The disturbing part is that this comes at an adverse time both for our exporters and for Atlantic Canada. While they are facing perhaps one of the worst economic crises in their history, the government is withdrawing its support not only in economic terms for the grain industry and flour industry in Saint John and Halifax but as well for the agricultural producers.
We are opposed to this legislation. We intend to oppose it in every way possible. It is unilateral action which is not being matched by our trading partners, by the United States, even though we have signed a free trade deal which is supposed to guarantee that we will
February 12, 1990

co-operate. We are co-operating. We are unilaterally removing support programs while at the same time the U.S. is increasing its support programs to take away world markets and to support its own producers.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the at and east rate is relative to the freight rates to some extent from Boston east. It was brought in, in 1959, to make sure that grains used by the flour industry, and to some extent by the people involved in the movement of flour, and the poultry and hog industry as well, be bought through Canadians instead of Americans.
The reason given by the minister today for bringing in this bill was that this was no longer a problem. However, one of the suggestions of the Atlantic Provinces Transport Commission was that it buy grain from the U.S., if the countervail were taken off corn, or from Europe because it was cheaper to ship it from there.
I would like the member to comment on whether or not this is really any different from the original need, which was to get the eastern provinces to buy Ontario and western grain for their needs.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt. Clearly, as he mentioned, this support program is very important to Atlantic Canada. The Maritime Farmers Council has suggested that the additional costs to Atlantic Canada will be some $21 per tonne for some 400 tonnes of prairie grains and Ontario corn.
As I mentioned, the Minister of Agriculture admitted in a letter to me dated December 13 that this would increase the cost of grains to Atlantic Canada. He said that the maintenance of the Halifax elevator is part of a broader set of issues related to the feed cost problem in Atlantic Canada.
In the current federal-provincial agriculture policy review, the Atlantic livestock producers will have the opportunity to bring forward ideas to help improve the viability of their industry. In the interim, I recognize that the maintenance of water transportation of feed grain in the Atlantic region is crucial and the minister will be announcing a measure to that effect in the near future. That letter was written December 13.
Government Orders
I wrote to the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds immediately. So far there has been no indication. If the Minister of State for Transportation was suggesting that this was no longer necessary, she should check with the Minister of Agriculture because he says that it is necessary, that there is some program coming forward.
It seems to me when this budget statement came out last April that Atlantic Canada and the producers indicated that they were facing a $21 per tonne increase in the cost of feed. Almost a year later the government still has not responded as to what support will be provided.
The Hon. Member for Saskatoon-Humboldt has raised an important question. If the government does not come through with whatever this new program will be, we could face the situation in Atlantic Canada of using American grains or off-shore grains to provide feed for the Atlantic Canada livestock producers rather than use our own grain from Ontario and western Canada ports.
The government does not have its act together. It is just like the way the Prime Minister negotiated the free trade deal where essentially you give everything away and then you trumpet what a great deal you got. if people do not believe you, you spend a few million dollars telling everybody what a great deal you got.
That seems to be what is happening. We are moving a support program which makes our industry in Atlantic Canada less competitive and, while the Americans are increasing their export enhancement program by some $900 million, the Secretary of Agriculture is saying that that is only the beginning. He will put more in if necessary.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, we have a need for regional development in this country. It has been a history of past federal governments since Confederation to promote regional development. In the past few years we have seen some real difficulties. Certainly from Saskatchewan's point of view, we have seen programs suffer and unemployment go up. In fact, Saskatchewan now has the second highest number of people living below the poverty line, second only to Newfoundland.
I would like to ask the hon. member his thoughts with respect to the maritimes and the need for regional diversification. The fishing industry is suffering in that area of the country and there is a need to maintain a viable agricultural community. I would like to ask the

February 12, 1990
Government Orders
member what his thoughts are with respect to the need to maintain regional diversification, not only in the maritimes but throughout the country.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I think that is extremely important. If free market forces solve regional development problems in this country, they would have been solved already. Clearly they cannot be solved by free market forces. They have not been solved in the last 120 years and they will not be solved, in my opinion, in that way. That is why I believe that the minister's green paper on the future of agriculture is really unbelievable. He says that we are going to remove support programs unilaterally. Whether or not the Americans or other countries do, we are going to become market sensitive and open our markets even though the Americans are closing their markets to most of our commodities. When you do those two things, you destroy marketing boards.
If you go to Atlantic Canada and look at the agriculture there, because of marketing boards and the system of support programs, they have a viable agriculture industry, whether in the production of potatoes, dairy and poultry products or processed foods in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
During the free trade debate there were hearings in Fredericton, New Brunswick. If you want to see what free trade will do for Atlantic Canada and New Brunswick, walk over to the state of Maine. They have had free trade with the rest of the United States for the last 50 or 100 years. The dairy and poultxy industry and other industries hardly exist there because there is no system to encourage them to produce and be viable.
I think one of the most important tools of regional development in at least three and to some extent the fourth Atlantic province is maintaining a viable agriculture industry. The first two tenets of the Minister of Agriculture's policy remove support programs unilaterally, whether our trading partners do or not and throw markets wide open to imports which will destroy marketing boards. This will destroy much of the regional economy in Canada which is doing quite well because of the systems of marketing we have. They are superior to
what they are doing in Maine and in most of the northern tier of the United States.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time I have had to speak on transportation programs such as the at and east rate for various regions in Canada. History tells us that the reason it is called the at and east rate is that it is based on what the American railroads were doing from Buffalo east to the Atlantic coast ports in the United States. Hence their name "at and east", the ports from Lake Huron, Georgian Bay, the upper and lower St. Lawrence and the Atlantic provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I want to submit to you, Sir, and I hope you will raise this matter in consultations that will go on, that this should not be dealt with in this House until the Speaker of the House of Commons and the National Transportation Agency have ruled on the action of the government. This would be a ruling by the Chair. The action of the railways should be the subject of a ruling of the National Transportation Agency, before which there is now an application on the implementation of the Railway Act.
Since last summer, the government has disobeyed the law of the land. The railways have ceased collecting and the railroads have been charging those who formerly got the benefits of the at and east rates, that is the full commercial rate in violation of the Railway Act. The government has ordered the railroads to do that. The government has not put up a single nickel since last summer. The legislation has not passed second reading, let alone receive Royal Assent. If there was ever a travesty of the parliamentary and democratic process, this is another one.
The Chair ruled recently about government advertising of legislation that had not passed Parliament. That was to spend money. This time the government is breaking the law of the land to save some money at the expense of western grain producers, the Atlantic provinces and Great Lakes ports. In my opinion, there can be no doubt the Chair must rule that the government must cease and desist in implementing what this bill requires before it becomes an act of Parliament. If we have to take the National Transportation Agency to court for not implementing the Railway Act, so be it. We will see this government in court because it is that serious.
February 12, 1990

I hope, Sir, that you will ask your colleagues, the Clerk and Clerk Assistants, to take this into consideration. I have been here for the same length of time as you have, Mr. Speaker, quite a while, and I do not recall the government implementing a law before it has been passed by Parliament. No money has been paid under the at and east rates since last summer. The government has become a little worried about it and has requested the railroads to keep track of it all, just in case it is found to be like a sick bird, illegal.
I know, Mr. Speaker, you would like to bring in a substitute but I wanted to get that word in to you before you did.
My final point on this is that the government in fact has advertised this legislation by ordering it to be carried out before it was passed.
Another point I want to make is that the bill is wrong in principle because it flies in the face of what this country has done since before 1867. Our forefathers took into account the whole settlement of the nation. They took into account our geography, our climate and where our people were located and where they produced and processed their goods. That is why there was the Crow's Nest Pass agreement of 1897.
That is why there were subsequently programs such as the bridge rates to get goods across northern Ontario where, at that time, there were very few people living. The trains did not need to stop and start up very often. There was no St. Lawrence Seaway. Subsequently, there was the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act, the Maritime Freight Rates Act, and the at and east rates which are now almost one-quarter of a century old. All of these programs should be looked at every five years or so and assessed as to how well they are doing and what improvements might be made. Nobody is suggesting they are perfect. The problem is, whenever a government says it is time to review something, it sure as heck does not review it to improve it. It reviews it to get rid of it and the government does not consult with the people who depend on that program.
Another reason for these programs was to protect ourselves from what the Americans were doing, then and now. Halifax and Saint John are two of the very few ice-free ports that we have. I guess one could add a couple or three more such as Vancouver, Prince Rupert
Government Orders
and New Westminster. We could add Saint John, but they took away the railroad. You do not truck grain that far for export, milling wheat or flour. You cannot count Saint John. So Halifax and Saint John are the only two that are ice-free.
The Americans will be increasing the Export Enhancement Program from approximately $530 million to $900 million in their next budget. What does the government do to protect Canadians in a region of Canada that has already suffered too much? It cancelled one of the few remaining programs they have. It means something to the ports of Halifax and Saint John, to the feed grain producers in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and to the milling industry in Halifax and Ontario.
We used to have half a dozen or more flour mills in the prairie provinces and we have lost all but one or two of them. We should be processing our production right where we produce it. We send it away because of some misbegotten principle that an end product costs more to move than a bulk product. I have never believed that even from my first days on the railroad and neither did my father before me.
I remember receiving a cabinet document in a plain brown envelope in 1981. I had a press conference in Regina and one here in Ottawa. This document outlined a long term policy. That was under a Liberal government, but it outlined the long-term policy that over a number of years, the government would get out from under every single transportation assistance program. It has continued in progression ever since then.
When we were in the Atlantic provinces dealing with deregulation and some of my colleagues were there dealing with the free trade deal, and when we held hearings on the Crow rate debate in 1982 and 1983, we warned the people of the Atlantic provinces. I am sad to say, too many of them did not believe us. They believe us now.
I am not going to fault members of the Official Opposition because most of them were not here. When Otto Lang made his famous speeches in 1974 and 1975 that it was time to review the Crowsnest Pass rates, and all the other transportation programs, you sure as hell could bet on it, he was not going to review them up. So I am not faulting my colleagues in the present Official Opposition. Most of them were not here. I think they

February 12, 1990
Government Orders
have repented the sins of their predecessors and have learned better.
What staggers me are the Conservatives who were present then and fought along with us as the Official Opposition, bitterly, tough and hard. It did not matter whether it was the Crow rate or branch line abandonment. They fought along with us as hard as they could.
I suppose one of the saddest experiences I have ever gone through in the House of Commons is seeing the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture. He and I sat together hour after hour, week after week, and year after year fighting together against what he and his government are doing now. He is a good friend and another member of the class of 1968.1 say to myself in sadness and sorrow: "Where the hell is he now?"
There is more to this than the government saving an average of $32 million a year. That is what the average cost of the at and east rates has been. It has to do with our whole nationhood. It has to do with the west and it has to do with the Atlantic provinces. When one of us gets hurt, all the rest of us get hurt either then or later. It has happened ad nauseam over the last 20 years. To rebuild the economy in the Atlantic provinces and on the prairies, we have to keep the present programs, improve them and enlarge them. The principle is that the nation as a whole shares in the cost of our nationhood. We do not victimize one province or one region because we have to reduce the budget and the deficit.
We will oppose this bill in principle because it has no principles. It flies in the face of the principles of our nation and our history. The government thinks it is going to save $32 million a year. What it will cost in unemployment insurance, severance pay and a host of other things for the 500 or 600 people who are employed directly or indirectly in Halifax and Saint John, plus the cost to the railroads, intermediate ports and terminals-Midland, Ontario, for example-western grain producers and how much more it will cost the Canadian Wheat Board to export our milling grain and flour will be more, much more than $32 million. It is a false economy and it hurts Canadians. It hurts Canadians in the areas who have already been hurt too much.
The Crow's Nest Pass and bridge rates are gone. The government has been niggling away at the Maritime Freight Rates Act and the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act. We have lost more than 3,000 miles of branch-lines and now it is hitting Quebec, Ontario and the Atlantic provinces. Two provinces, Newfoundland and P.E.I., will have no railroad at all. We lost the two-price wheat. We lost interest-free cash advances. And the government brags about how much it has done for agriculture. With friends like that, I wish they would go away.
There used to be a three-way deal. The Soviet Union would sign a contract for one, two or three million tonnes of Canadian grain. It was assisting Cuba. It asked Canada to mill a certain portion of that grain into flour and ship it to Cuba. The Cubans, who did not have dollars or roubles, sent the equivalent value in sugar and rum to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union paid us in cash. It worked for several years as a beautiful three-way deal. Dover Flour Mills in Halifax milled a lot of that flour. A lot of it was milled in mills in Ontario and in Montreal. We even shipped some from Saskatoon. That is gone. It is down the drain.
Then one hears about the additional subsidy and export enhancement which will bring the American subsidy up to as much as $30 a tonne depending on the kind and quality of grain. One hears about people in Atlantic Canada saying in desperation that it would be cheaper for us to import seed grain from Europe. My God, what are we doing? We are debating the same nonsense we started with the unlamented Otto Lang, only these guys are doing it in spades.
There is the other problem called harmonization. The government is so desperate to make sure that the United States is happy with us under the free trade agreement that we do not want to hurt their feelings. It considers the Canadian Wheat Board, the at and east rates, and our standards on plywood to be unfair. As a result this government is bringing in legislation and regulations, not to benefit Canada, but to bring us into line with the wishes of the United States government and United States Congress. There can be no doubt about that.
It used to be a firing-squad offence things for traitorous behaviour and for cowardice in the face of the enemy. In this case they talk about the economic enemy and, for that matter, a social enemy. In other ways they are good friends. The Americans are angry at us for one of the rare occasions we put a countervail on U.S. com.
February 12, 1990

It is coming into Ontario mainly, and a little into Quebec, at outrageously subsidized prices and they are complaining.
I urge the Chair to say this bill cannot be dealt with until the government enforces the law this bill is trying to change. One cannot make the law and a bill like this retroactive. It is rare when that happens and budget bills are among the few in which it does happen. We also have to wait until the National Transportation Agency rules on their jurisdiction being usurped, preventing them from implementing the Railway Act, enforcing the Railway Act on both Canadian railways.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, back in the early 1970s and the late 1960s a group of farmers and transportation people took the government department to court regarding the temporary reserves act and won that particular case. Would the Hon. Member for Regina-Lumsden, who was in the House at that time, comment on the circumstances under which that case was brought to court and what happened.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am glad my colleague for Saskatoon- Humboldt reminded me. It was in 1970 or 1971 that the then minister brought in a bill called, "Lower Inventories for Tomorrow". Imagine paying farmers not to grow food, if that was not stupid enough. In the bill was a clause that repealed the temporary Wheat Reserves Act retroactively for 18 months. So that is not the first time I have seen this retroactive nonsense. We checked with some legal eagles and we were told that I could not take the government to court, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and the farmer's union could not take them to court, that it had to be somebody who had a direct interest in the matter.
The temporary Wheat Reserves Act was a measure whereby, if there was more that a certain amount of grain in store at the end of a crop year, and I think the ceiling was 175 million bushels, for anything more than that the federal government paid the storage costs. It was not the farmer's fault that the Seaway was frozen. It was not the farmer's fault that international markets had gone to hell. The government protected them. They tried to retroactively cancel the temporary Wheat Reserves Act, and the government had not sent a nickel to the Canadian Wheat Board for 18 months. It came to
Government Orders
nice tidy figure of a little over $96 million that the government of day owed to the Canadian Wheat Board.
We did some more inquiring. I got a well-to-do farmer and a poor farmer and a couple of middle-sized farmers in my hon. friend's constituency that used to be called Assiniboia, in the area in Milestone, and we took them to Federal Court. The Deputy Minister of Justice, the judge, the interpreters, the whole works had to be flown to Regina. God knows what that cost. The Minister of Justice of the day, the most recent leader of the official opposition, and the Minister of Finance of the day were ready to shoot one Otto Lang, only nobody would let them have a gun.
We not only won the $96 million, we won $1.7 in interest charges. Then we won another $2,700 in court costs. I was a little worried about who was going to put up the court costs, but we won it. Why? Because the government of that day attempted to retroactively prevent their agencies from enforcing the law that the Parliament of Canada had passed. That is exactly what is being attempted now. By the way, we did not get an injunction. We applied for and got a writ of mandamus, which is the opposite of an injunction. An injunction states that you cannot do something. A writ of mandamus states that you must do something. In that instance it was: "You must obey your own law". Mr. Speaker, this government must obey its own law.
It is bad enough that they bring this bill in to take effect today without royal assent. But to bring it in retroactive for 18 months-and it will be that much, at least-but if it ever gets through here, it is the same principle. That flies in the face of a democratic system. It flies in the face of the principle that the first one to obey the law is the government itself.
I always thought that might be a lesson for years to come for any government of any political stripe. Obviously, it has not been. If we have to go through that exercise again, so be it.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-26, an act to amend the Railway Act, regarding grain and flour subsidies.
This legislation proposes to eliminate the at and east subsidies for the transport of export grain and flour through eastern Canadian ports. The elimination of

Government Orders
business for our ports is the last thing Atlantic Canada needs in these difficult times.
The at and east program has been in effect since the 1960s. It was intended to offset some of the economic advantages that the U.S. eastern ports had over Canadian ports in terms of proximity to the sources of grain supply, larger facilities, and better transportation services.
Under the program, a fixed rate level for the movement of grain and flour from western Canada by rail to eastern ports was established in order to encourage the use of the eastern ports. Because the rail rates were frozen by statute, the railways were reimbursed by the federal government for the difference between the fixed rates charged to grain and flour shippers and the actual rates normally charged by the railways and set by the National Transportation Agency.
The at and east program has had far-reaching and beneficial effects on eastern ports, especially those of Halifax and Saint John and, therefore, on the regional economy. Almost 100 per cent of all export grain tonnage shipped through Saint John, and approximately 60 per cent of tonnage by way of Halifax, moved under the at and east rates. The direct and indirect benefits of such a huge amount of tonnage moving through our eastern ports are vital to the region's economy. The loss of this business will be devastating.
In its budget of 1989, the federal government announced the intention to eliminate the at and east grain and flour subsidy. The government's rationale for killing the subsidy was that the cost of shipping by rail to the U.S. ports is now considerably higher than it was at the time of the program's initiation, and that the railway costs were higher than those of shipping by water through the St. Lawrence Seaway. Also, the government stated that the subsidy created distortions and inefficiencies in the movement of grain and that the subsidy is: "Inconsistent with the government's market-oriented transportation policy."
We in Atlantic Canada know all to well that this government is market-oriented rather than people-oriented. The elimination of this program is going to have a devastating effect not only on the ports of Halifax and Saint John, but on the entire maritime region. The first to suffer will be the workers whose jobs depend on the
grain and flour that moves on Canadian railways and through those ports.
We in Atlantic Canada have suffered through a year of negative government policies which are already having a devastating effect on the Atlantic economy, policies such as the closure and reduction of Canadian Armed Forces bases, the ongoing crisis in the Atlantic fishery, the gutting of the unemployment insurance program, and the cut-backs in VIA Rail. As if this were not enough, the government is now going to ruin the vital Saint John and Halifax ports which will have terrible direct and indirect consequences.
An analysis by the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission estimated that approximately $14.5 million in economic activity will be lost to the Atlantic region by the elimination of the at and east rail rates. If the Saint John and Halifax elevators were to close, the cost could reach approximately $26.5 million. The region cannot bear this kind of blow, especially now with a terrible year behind us, an even a worse one to come, and a recession looming.
The impact will be felt by the ports and by other sectors of the economy that depend on the movement of grain through the ports such as the activity in the grain elevators in Saint John and Halifax, and employment in the ports and on the railway. Indeed, the effect is already being felt. Even though this House did not pass the legislation, the National Transportation Agency has, without the approval of the House of Commons, raised the rates charged on export grain and flour moving on Canadian railways to eastern ports. It is no coincidence that the grain elevator at Saint John is slated to close this month, and that is only the beginning.
What would happen if the elevator in Halifax were to close? Beside its role in the movement of export grain, the elevator plays an important role in the storage and handling of domestic feed grain, and milling wheat. The elevators' inability to store and handle these grains, or even a rise in costs, would seriously damage the Atlantic pork, poultry, egg, and beef industries.
In addition, the Halifax elevator is the sole means of storage for milling wheat for the only Atlantic regional flour mill. The loss of the Halifax storage facility, which would result in large increases in freight rates and major capital expenditures for new or upgraded facilities,
February 12, 1990

would seriously damage the competitiveness of the flour mill.
As if the effect on the ports, elevators and mills is not bad enough, the maritimes would face the abandonment of much more of the rail network in a region which depends on the movement of grain and flour to the ports. It is painfully obvious that the elimination of the at and east transport subsidies would have a devastating impact on the economy of the Atlantic region which is already reeling from the effects of other government policies.
Employment will feel the pinch. The people who depend on a healthy, viable port industry will be among the first to suffer as jobs begin to disappear in the ports, the elevators, and the railways.
After the government announced that the at and east subsidy would be eliminated, the president of the Halifax grain elevator estimated that several hundred jobs could be lost at the port of Halifax as a direct result of this decision.
The estimate did not include the number of jobs lost in related sectors. Industry and labour officials all predict the major loss of business and jobs in the ports, elevators, and related industries as a result of higher transportation rates.
The Atlantic region cannot bear this loss of yet more jobs. How many times do we have to tell that to this government? When will it begin to understand the ultimate cost of its negative, short-sighted policies? Atlantic Canadians want to work. They need to work. They do not want to depend on unemployment insurance, or what will be left of the program if the government gets its way. Hundreds of jobs depend directly and indirectly on healthy, viable ports, elevators and grain transportation systems. The long-term costs of the loss of these jobs and of the damage to the Atlantic economy caused by an under-utilization of these systems and facilities will be enormous.
It is only logical that if there is a loss of government support for the transport of grain and flour along Canadian railways to eastern Canadian ports, less grain and flour will move through the ports. The Atlantic region already suffers from inherent disadvantages in competing with the U.S. ports which enjoy better ship-
Govemment Orders
ping connections, not only with the American grain producers, but to the Canadian producers as well.
It is an age-old problem for eastern ports. The at and east helped us to remain competitive with the U.S. I should note that the at and east not only helped the eastern sector of grain and flour movement, but the western sector as well. Wheat boards need the fixed rates to move grain during the winter months to offset the higher costs of rail movement after the Seaway navigation closes. They need the fixed rates in order to sustain shipment to customers on a year-round basis.
By the elimination of the subsidies, the government manages to hurt both the eastern and western economies. If the government is truly concerned about reducing the amount of money it pays for the subsidies, while allowing the ports to remain viable, why has it not even responded to the positive proposals put forth by the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission?
As long ago as 1985, as was mentioned earlier this afternoon, at the invitation of the Minister of Transport, the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission submitted proposals to make the at and east more efficient. The commission acknowledged that the program, as it was originally planned, did eventually create some distortions in the movement of grain by discouraging the use of least cost routing.
But the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission believes that it is possible to be cost efficient, while still meeting certain objectives. Those objectives are to maintain the grain elevators at Saint John and Halifax, to maintain the commercial viability of the Halifax flour mill, and to maintain a constant flow of grain by rail through the two ports.
The APTC proposed that the frozen rates to the St. Lawrence ports be raised to compensatory levels and be held at such levels by the NTA. At the same time, the rates to eastern ports would be set at a fixed differential over the compensatory rates which would maintain the competitive relationship between the St. Lawrence and the Atlantic ports.
Finally, the APTC recommended that the fixed rates to Atlantic ports also apply to water transport, which is the most cost-efficient method of grain movement, and that the federal government fund a marine receiving

February 12, 1990
Government Orders
facility at Saint John. The port currently has no such facility and can therefore handle only rail deliveries.
It was estimated that the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission proposal would have resulted in government savings of some $22 million in transportation subsidies per year, which is about one-half of the total cost of the at and east program. But the Atlantic Province Transportation Commission never received a government response to its proposals. It seems that the efficient movement of grain to eastern ports, with the least amount of damage to western and eastern economies, is not the government's primary concern. Well, the government is once again bowing down to its idol of market-oriented policy while disregarding the human costs.
Atlantic Canadian workers asked the government to reconsider its short-sighted decision to completely eliminate the at and east program. They asked the government to consult with groups such as the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission so that the current distortions in the system could be eliminated without destroying the viability of Atlantic ports. With effort, ingenuity, and some will on the part of the government it can be done.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to say that it is a pleasure for me to take part in this debate today because it is not. The debate should not even be happening, if the government had any sense of justice or any sense of fairness. I am going to put forth a few ideas, most of which are not mine, but which come through my reading of the brief prepared by the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission.
According to APTC, the termination of the at and east rates will have serious economic consequences for the maritime ports, as well as certain activities that depend on the movement of export grain and flour through those ports. Based on an estimate made by the commission, the economic impact of the at and east rates program on the Atlantic provinces, based on 1985 data, was close to $35 million annually.
In addition to this, several studies have shown that the at and east structure, in its present form, creates certain distortions and inefficiencies in the movement of export grain and flour. In recognition of possible distortions, in
1985 the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission proposed certain modifications in the program to first reduce the demand on the federal treasury, second, lessen or eliminate distortions and inefficiencies, and third, to maintain movement of export grain and flour through Atlantic ports. The objectives of the proposed modifications were the maintenance of the grain elevators as viable units at Halifax and Saint John, the maintenance of the commercial viability of the flour mill at Halifax, and maintaining a flow of export grain and flour through Atlantic ports.
The specific proposal of the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission was that the rates be frozen at the present level, and the St. Lawrence ports be allowed to raise to a compensatory level and be held at a compensatory level on an annual basis by the national government. The economic impact of the government proposal on the Atlantic region will be in excess of $34 million.
An analysis by the APTC of the regional impact of the program showed that approximately $14.4 million in economic activity will be lost to the region due to the termination of this subsidy. However, should both grain elevators in the region at Halifax and Saint John be unable to continue operations, then the negative impact would amount to approximately $27.6 million. These amounts do not include any economic activity generated by the program which occurred outside the Atlantic region, such as railway employment, inland elevators, lake vessels, et cetera.
The maintenance of the Halifax grain elevators as a viable operation is of critical economic import to the entire Atlantic region. As well as the activity generated by the movement of export grain through the facility, the elevator also plays a vital role in the storage and handling of domestic feed grain and milling wheat.
Local pork, poultry and egg industries and, to a lesser extent, the beef industry, would be seriously affected should the Halifax elevator be unable to remain in operation. That is very dicey. In addition, the Halifax elevator is utilized as the only means of storage for milling wheat by the Atlantic region flour mill. The use of the Halifax elevator for domestic feed grains represents the only competitive alternative to the use of the railways as a means of obtaining the required feed
February 12, 1990

ingredients for the local livestock and poultry industries as well.
The use of lake vessels to Halifax with truck delivery beyond is the only competition faced by the railways for the amount of domestic feed grains into the maritimes. Without this alternative, rail rates for the domestic feed grains would be higher than presently is the case. As evidence of this fact, one has only to look at the historical record of feed grain rates to the maritimes to see that a significant drop in the rail rates took place when the water route to Halifax and the Halifax elevator began to be utilized for the handling of domestic livestock feed grains.
The local livestock and poultry industries in the maritimes face a tremendous disadvantage in terms of feed costs versus their competition in Quebec and Ontario. Any feed cost increases would place these industries in jeopardy. Local feed grain production in the maritimes meets approximately 20 per cent of requirements in Nova Scotia, from 35 to 40 per cent in New Brunswick, and up to 80 per cent in Prince Edward Island. The flour mill at Halifax faces intense competition in the Atlantic provinces market from competitors located in central Canada. It is totally dependent on the Halifax elevator for storage of milling wheat. The loss of that storage facility resulting in large increases in freight rates and capital expenditure to construct alternative storage facilities would seriously erode the competitiveness of the local mill. Local milling wheat producers would be faced with the loss of their only market should the flour mill at Halifax be abandoned or unable to continue operations.
In addition, the only source for mill feeds within the region would disappear resulting in higher procurement costs for the feed industry and higher feed prices. The Saint John grain elevator serves only the export market, however, the rail traffic provided by the movement of export grain over that portion of the rail line from Montreal to Saint John was an important contribution to the viability of that line. The maritimes is dealing with the abandonment of approximately 50 per cent of the rail network in the region. Any loss of traffic which will affect the viability of remaining lines is viewed as a very serious matter.
The shipment of export flour through the port of Halifax contributed significantly to employment at the port. It also played an important role for the railways in
Government Orders
the positioning of boxcars within the maritimes for domestic use as the cars utilizing the shipment of export flour to Halifax were then positioned within the maritimes for the shipment of domestic cargo such as newsprint.
In 1985, in response to an invitation from the Minister of Transport, the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission developed and submitted specific proposals designed to make the at and east subsidy program more effective and efficient, while at the same time ensuring that the program responded to three regional economic objectives. These objectives were to maintain the grain elevators at Halifax and Saint John as viable units, to maintain the commercial viability of the flour mill at Halifax, and to maintain a constant flow of export grain and flour by rail through the ports of Halifax and Saint John.
The APTC proposal called for the rail rates on export grain and flour to St. Lawrence River ports to rise to compensatory levels. Rates to maritime ports would then be maintained at a fixed differential in relation to the St. Lawrence ports to allow the maritime ports to continue to participate in the movement of this traffic. The subsidy would maintain the fixed differential in rates. The proposal also called for the application of the program to include the use of water transportation to the maritime ports, and for the federal government to provide funding for a marine receiving facility for grain at Saint John to enable the use of water transportation to that port and to reduce the level of subsidy that would otherwise be required to support the use of higher cost rail transportation.
It was agreed by all parties that steps must be taken to ensure that the grain elevators at Halifax and Saint John are able to continue as viable operations, and that export grain and flour continue to move through the ports of Halifax and Saint John. They have put forward proposals with the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission to minimize harmful effects. The problem is the government does not listen.
The use of unit trains from Thunder Bay, or direct from prairie origins, to move export grain to both Saint John and Halifax is viable. This would allow both railroads to establish rates based on their most efficient method of operation. However, to become a viable alternative, this would require the full support of the Canadian Wheat Board and a commitment to provide existing government-owned covered hopper cars under

February 12, 1990
Government Orders
the same terms as they are provided under the Western Grain Transportation Act. Wouldn't that be terrible!
To permit the use of water transportation to Halifax and Saint John for Plan C feed grain would allow the most economical mode of transportation to be utilized for grain movement under Plan C pricing. The elimination of the countervail duty on U.S. corn would allow the elevators at Saint John and Halifax the opportunity to utilize existing back-haul vessel capacity to receive U.S. corn from Atlantic seaboard ports. The local livestock industry could then have the option of securing its corn requirements from either Canadian or U.S. sources, depending upon market conditions, and providing throughout at the local elevators.
The provision of facilities to receive grain by water at the Saint John grain elevator is currently unable to function due to the lack of necessary marine unloading equipment. Imagine how long they would put up with that in one of the Great Lakes seaports. The provision of equipment to allow for the receiving of grain by water would give the elevator the opportunity to solicit business, which it is not able to accommodate at present, such as U.S. corn or shipments of Canadian export grain directly from lake vessels.
What of the continued use of Halifax for the shipment of export flour? The natural advantages of Halifax for the handling of this type of cargo should be promoted and fully utilized. Another proposal is the provision of permits allowing the importation of feed grains from foreign countries. This would allow the grain elevators at Halifax and Saint John to increase the volume of grain handled, should opportunities arise in this market and contribute to the over-all viability of the operations.
The at and east export grain and flour subsidy program had important implications for several domestic industries in the Atlantic region, including local livestock producers, flour milling and the railways. With the cancellation of this program, the continued viability of grain elevators at Halifax and Saint John is definitely in jeopardy.
It is vital that these and other alternatives put forth by other interested parties be examined and a solution found to guarantee the continued operation of the grain elevators at Halifax and Saint John.
Despite the woeful contempt of this government for Parliament, I am making this proposal developed by the APTC in the vain hope that this government may listen to reasonable and thoughtful alternatives. However, these are the same people who have not listened to any other proposals that'have been put forward. I ask, indeed I plead with the government to listen and seriously consider the well-being of Atlantic Canada. We are still a part of this nation. We have not been cut adrift yet, although the government has worked very hard at doing that.
While the Prime Minister, the Minister for International Trade, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and the Minister of Finance are all busy trying to savage our social programs, our military bases, our fisheries and our way of life, what are our Atlantic Tory members doing? Where is the Minister of Veterans Affairs hiding? Where is the Minister of Regional Development? What is he doing?
What can we expect of these people who have betrayed their mandate and their people? These are the same people who silently allowed the government to savage Atlantic Canada after we had the Wilsonian restraint. These are the same people who have allowed our military bases to be savaged throughout Atlantic Canada and elsewhere.
These are the same people who silently allowed Canada Post to ride roughshod over the will of the people. That is another dictatorship in this country.
The clock is ticking and Atlantic Canadians have long, long memories. I say to my colleagues opposite that the time is running out for them. It is time to start fighting for your region, for the infrastructure, what is left of it and, most of all, for your people.
Atlantic Canadians are getting very fed up with this government. They are sick and tired of being betrayed. Every promise that was made to Atlantic Canadians has been broken. I cannot think of one promise that was made, and there were a lot of them in the last couple of elections. I cannot think of one that has not been broken. It is time members of this government started to be a
February 12, 1990

little sensible and a little sensitive to the people of Atlantic Canada. If they are not they will pay the price, because Atlantic Canadians have very long memories.


Mr. Hockin:: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member aware that the federal government, through the Atlantic Opportunities Agency, has spent over a billion dollars and that there will be new co-operative agreements emerging? Is he aware that since 1984 the federal government has spent $540 million in Cape Breton alone? Is he aware that unemployment in the Atlantic provinces since this present government has been in power has fallen enormously from 1984? Is he aware that unemployment has fallen in every province of Atlantic Canada since this government has been in power, compared to the previous government?
Is he aware of these very important facts which indicate the strength of commitment, resolve and the practical contribution that the federal government has exhibited toward Atlantic Canada right from the first month of its mandate?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Now, Mr. Speaker, that is what you call looking at the world through rose-coloured glasses. As a matter of fact I would say blue-coloured glasses.
Let me tell the hon. member what I remember. I remember the betrayal of CFB Chatham and the directorate of pay services. I remember the betrayal of myriad promises that were made throughout Atlantic Canada. I can see what is happening to CFB Summerside: another betrayal.
I can go on and on, but you have the picture, Mr. Speaker. You can talk about CN shops too, if you want. You can talk about the refusal of this government to enter into a cost sharing agreement with the Atlantic provinces to maintain their infrastructure.


Mr. Hopkins:: That is nothing new.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: No, it is nothing new, but the government had been out of power so long that we forgot how very bad it could be.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Miramichi has made an excellent speech to the House and I commend him for it. In preparation for this speech did he consult with his constituents and those in Atlantic Canada who are interested in this issue? I wonder if he has had any consultations with farmers in the region on what they might think of this bill?
Government Orders


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the proper noun that could be used with regard to the views of farmers in the region is anger or despair, but it is one or the other.
I can tell the hon. member that farmers are totally fed up with the way in which this government is conducting its affairs with the obvious-


An hon. member:: And not only the farmers.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: -attempts that were made during the campaign to deceive the public. Knowing that they have been deceived, they have no faith left in the government.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I thought my friend for Miramichi answered the question of ACOA even before the minister rose. Although I am sure it was unintentional the minister did mislead the House just now. ACOA was funded for a five-year period. These guys and gals have the brain-child that they should spread the five years over seven years after half the money was spent.
If the minister is going to participate in this debate in any fashion, he should at least tell the truth to the House. I am sure my friend for Miramichi would agree with that, if he had the time. Perhaps we should give him, by leave, a little extra time to deal with the ACOA question, because I would not want him to leave on record that mischievous misinformation of the minister of tourism about ACOA.
The idea is that somehow in Tory terms a cut-back is an improvement for people. The minister and his government should be the people on the other end trying to buy the groceries, trying to get ACOA grants, when there is not as much in the pot spread over a larger period. I am sure my friend would want to endorse that.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I certainly would want to endorse that. I would want to say as well that Atlantic Canadians, certainly Canadians in my riding, are very disappointed with the Government Canada and regional development.
As my colleague said, the government has spread the money over more years than it promised and it has devastated regional economic development. As a matter of fact, most people I know are very suspicious now that many of the ACOA grants are given out on the basis of patronage rather than on the basis of proper assessment. Certainly, I think a very strong case could be made for

Government Orders
that in the way that the largess was heaped upon certain areas of New Brunswick during the last campaign.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I rise yet again in this Elouse more in sorrow than in anger, yet still in disbelief. Perhaps after 14 months in this House my disbelief should be tempered with knowledge of the activity and agenda of the other side.
I speak particularly as a member from the beleaguered region of Atlantic Canada. I listened today, and I listened proudly, to the words of my colleagues from Lambton-Middlesex, from Miramichi and from Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, as well as others who spoke eloquently and long on the subject of this government's particular agenda.
I listened and I listened proudly knowing that my colleagues speak out for all regions this country which are suffering at the hands of this government. But, as an Atlantic Canadian, I suppose you can call this a special pleading because I think there is not another region that suffers quite so badly at the hands of this government.
We have seen it day after day in this House, in bill after bill, in policy after policy. The Atlantic fishery is in crisis, no matter what the right hon. Prime Minister might say. VIA Rail has been cut to pieces. Atlantic Canadian students, seniors and the sick are unable to depend on the transportation lifeline that they have relied on for so many years. We have seen another nail in the coffin of our economy.
I listened with interest to the comment of the minister, who appears to have gone somewhere, regarding the so-called wondrous gifts of ACOA. Those of us in Atlantic Canada, those of us who sit here and represent our fellow Atlantic Canadians, know the myth of that kind of talk. As my colleague from Miramichi said, we will not forget. We will remember.
Last June, many of the same people who rose today to speak on the issue of the at and east subsidy rose then as well to talk about the devastation the passage of this bill will create in our region. We talked about it then because of the effective date in the legislation, the fact that before the bill had been presented to this House the word was already out in the Atlantic and elsewhere that
July 16 would be the effective date of the cancellation of the subsidy.
It is more than just a coincidence. It is the fulfilment of yet another piece of the agenda of this government. Those of us duly elected by our people from coast to coast are irrelevant to the workings of this government. The subsidy is cancelled on July 16 and the bill comes into this House on February 12-seven months later. It is not only not good enough. It is an insult to the people who represent Canadians on both sides of this Chamber.
My colleague from Kingston and the Islands asked my colleague from Miramichi what the farmers in Atlantic Canada think of the cancellation of this subsidy. The hon. member for Miramichi said that they thought it was disastrous. I think that he was being kind. In truth the response, should you ask Atlantic Canadian farmers what they think of the cancellation of the at and east, is simply unparliamentary. I cannot tell you what that response is but I can leave it to the imagination. I hope the imaginations of my friends opposite are fairly vivid. Atlantic Canadian farmers are in distress. They are going to be in more distress because of the cost of feed.
I represent a riding that is urban. There are no agricultural holdings in my riding, but every Atlantic Canadian suffers when one sector of the economy is attacked. When every sector of our economy is under attack, as it has been since the disastrous budget of 1989, then all Atlantic Canadians, urban or rural in whatever jobs they have left, are in difficulty and will continue to be in difficulty.
I go back to the purpose of the program. According to the then Minister of Transport, the Liberal Minister of Transport, the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill, in 1966 there were two major purposes for the at and east. The first was to ensure that eastern Canadian ports could compete with U.S. ports and to enable the ports of Halifax and Saint John to compete with Montreal and other St. Lawrence River ports.
The cancellation of this subsidy is a microcosm for the long-term policies of this government vis-a-vis our nation. To ensure that eastern Canadian ports could compete with U.S. ports, I am afraid we have seen over the last 14 months just how keen this government is to
February 12, 1990

have any industry in this country compete too heavily with our American friends.
I am afraid that when it comes to a choice between struggling industry and workers on the east coast of Canada and American business, in the minds of this government American business will win out. There are many benefits to this program.
The program has caused the railways to earn gross revenues averaging $33.5 million over the period from 1971 to 1981. Georgian Bay ports and transfer elevators earned revenue averaging $1.4 million per year and maintained about 75 jobs as a result of the program. Halifax and Saint John earned revenues averaging $1.6 million per year and maintained about 85 jobs.
That may not sound like a lot but believe me in the Atlantic Canadian economy it is major and important. The loss of those jobs and others relating to this subsidy will cut and cut deeply into a section of the country that is already battered and bleeding.
In anticipation of what we will be receiving at the hands of the government on the night of February 20, when the new budget comes down, some of us in Atlantic Canada have looked at each other and said: "Well, maybe we do not have a lot to fear". The reason we may not have a lot to fear is because there is practically nothing left that can be taken away from us, unless the government decides to fire bomb our cities, which may be the next step. I should probably not issue that challenge; God knows what they might come up with.
The milling industry benefits significantly from the subsidy program without which the export flour trade might become extinct. Between 1976 and 1985 the flour industry exported 406,308 tonnes on average annually under the program. Approximately 70 per cent of the flour shipped for export was milled in eastern Canada.
In 1985 the industry received about $16 million in subsidy payments compared to about $9.7 million in 1976.
Much of the decrease in Canadian export flour trade can be attributed to the significant market share captured by the EEC. The EEC members have been heavily subsidized under the common agricultural policy. This financial assistance has enabled them to increase their share of the world flour market from about 8 per cent in 1970-71 to 58 per cent in 1984-85. Yet this government
Government Orders
has something against subsidies that might do the same thing for eastern Canadian industries and might see us add a little to a much beleaguered economic situation.
Grain producers in eastern and western Canada benefit through freight cost savings and shipments made under the program and the realization of higher average returns by spreading out marketing quantities of grain throughout the year. This is particularly true of Ontario grain producers.
The Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board exports about 450,000 tonnes to 600,000 tonnes of grain, of which about 150,000 tonnes move under the at and east subsidy program. The existence of the Georgian Bay-Great Lakes transfer elevator facilities enable Ontario producers to store their crop and market it over an extended period of time, thereby yielding producers the best average return.
The railways, CN and CP, received the subsidy for the transportation of grain and flour at the frozen rate. They also gain from the handling of grain at railway owned and/or operated elevators in Georgian Bay and Saint John, New Brunswick. In 1985 the railways received average subsidies of $23.40 per tonne for grain and $63.58 per tonne for flour. As noted earlier, a number of old Ontario elevators and the elevators in Halifax and Saint John owe their existence to the at and east subsidy.
It is conceivable the Port McNicoll, Midland and Owen Sound would not exist as transfer facilities without the subsidy. The same is absolutely true of the maritime elevators. Those maritime elevators, and the one I know most particularly, the one in Halifax, mark a part of our skyline and they show us in the city of Halifax that people are working. This ideal is becoming less and less true as we drive around Atlantic Canada. This ideal has become untrue for the people of Lockeport. It has become much less true for the people of Canso. It has never been true since this government came in for the people of Cape Breton, in spite of the words of the hon. minister.
Bay port elevators provide maritime elevators with most of their at and east grain traffic. This traffic, subsidized by the at and east, accounts for 95 per cent of total receipts at Saint John and 70 per cent of total receipts at Halifax. We have been discussing, debating,

February 12, 1990
Government Orders
complaining and asking the government to change its mind about this for over a year. There has been no response.
It is interesting. It is not all cakes and ale on the Conservative side of the fence as far as this goes. There are even some Conservative members who are not terribly happy about this decision. Even an hon. Tory, the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants, is on record as supporting offsets to help grain growers in the region. I think it would be interesting to know how he really feels about the cancellation of the at and east subsidy.
Halifax is a city that depends on its ports. The grain elevators, the activity produced by the grain elevators, and the jobs created thereto are a part of the relative economic health of the city of Halifax. I say "relative" because it is relative to the ill health of the rest of the region. That ill health in the rest of the region has been caused by the poisoned dart of government policy.
There is no particular reason, other than a government devoted to a Canada that does not exist outside the very central part of our geography, to see our regions die, and yet they are dying. They are dying from a lack of interest. They are dying from an interest that can only be described as poisonous and that can only be described as anti the best interests of large numbers of Canadian citizens.
If the regional elevators lose the grain exports from the at and east subsidy and somehow on their other business manage to remain open, $14.4 million in economic activity will be lost. But, if both regional elevators shut down, loss of economic activity will be in excess of $27 million. Local livestock and poultry industries in the maritimes face a tremendous disadvantage in terms of feed costs versus the costs in central Canada.
Again, another hit below the belt. Another damaging blow to a small but viable industry in the Atlantic region. It almost gets to the point where Atlantic Canadians look around and say: "What did we do to deserve this?". Some may respond that what Atlantic Canadians did to deserve this was send too many people to this Chamber, to sit on my side of the House. I look at my colleagues from Atlantic Canada who sit on your side of the House. I look at the member for South Shore, possibly the second most beleaguered riding in Canada, which is
home to Lockeport and home to Barrington and used to be home to a VIA Rail route.
I look at the member for Cumberland-Colchester. I look at the member for Halifax West and I look at the Minister from Central Nova, and I want to say to them: "How can you live with this specific policy that points a gun at the heart of your region, and daily sees the people you represent, your fellow Nova Scotians, losing their jobs, losing their livelihood, but worst of all, losing their hope".
That is the ultimate terror and the ultimate disgrace of the policy of this government, of this anti-national government that looks at people in a region and says that because they live in the Atlantic, or because they live in the north, or because they live in the west, they are not full-fledged Canadians and do not deserve the same benefits that other Canadians enjoy. They do not have a right to stay in their towns and villages and cities to bring up their children and buy their houses and live a decent Canadian standard of living.
I will never ever forget sitting in Halifax with the committee on the UI changes. I heard an hon. member opposite say to the President of Federation acadienne de Nouvelle-Ecosse that if young Acadian Nova Scotians could not find jobs, they had an easy option. They could move or they could starve. Well, we do not accept that. We do not accept it in Atlantic Canada and we will not accept it. This government had better realize it now, and realize it fast.


Mr. Kempling:: She is threatening us now.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Yes, she is threatening, Bill. Indeed, there are a lot of other people who are threatening, right behind me. There are 800,000 people in the province of Nova Scotia. There are 500,000 plus in the province of New Brunswick. There are 150,000 in Prince Edward Island. Small, I admit. But we are there and we are vocal. The members who have been elected to represent those people will continue to be vocal.
You can make your policies. You can practise your scorched earth policy, your search and destroy missions on the Atlantic. But we survive. We survived John Diefenbaker, and we will survive you. The sooner you are aware of that and the sooner you start thinking about what that is going to mean for you and all your friends in 1992, I think the happier you may be. Believe me, we
February 12, 1990

were here before you got here and we will be here long after you have gone.


An hon. member:: Hear, hear!


Mary Catherine Clancy: We are tough.


An hon. member:: You had better find a leader.


Mary Catherine Clancy: My dear, we are burdened with a plethora of leaders. You should only be so lucky.
In answer to this obvious desire to change the subject by my less than learned colleagues across the floor, may I merely state that it is only typical of the tunnel vision of my hon. colleagues that they cannot see the forest for the trees.
However, back to the issue at hand, the issue of the at and east. The cancellation of the subsidy is a disgrace and it is one that will long, long be remembered.
I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
That Bill C-26, an Act to amend the Railway Act (grain and flour subsidies), be not now read a second time, but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 is deemed to have been moved.

Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, on December 13, 1989, I asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration whether she would immediately discontinue the Immigrant Investors Program which allows wealthy people to buy their way into Canada by investing $250,000 or, in the case of the prairie provinces or the maritimes, $150,000. I also asked whether she would take action to ensure fairness in Canada's immigration policy.
The success of this buy-a-passport program is questionable. There are many reports of investors losing their money in government-sanctioned immigrant investor funds. At least five such funds in B.C., including three
Adjournment Debate
that were controlled by the Merbanco Group of Calgary, Pinetree Software Canada and New Canada have been called failures. Investors who had deposited money in EdmontAsia Capital Corporation, an Alberta-based investment fund that was also managed by the Merbanco Group, have been told that at least half of their money was gone. The failure of these government-sanctioned immigrant investor funds not only gives Canada a bad name, it also gives bad publicity to other investment funds which are reputable.
There are also complaints that the money from some of these immigrant investor funds are not used for economic development and job creation. Money invested in Pinetree Software Canada has been tucked away in a trust company collecting interest. In the meantime the company has been declared a failure. The Canadian Maple Leaf Fund has invested $581,000 in real estate development in Whistler. Yet, under federal guidelines this immigrant investor money cannot be used for real estate ventures. These kinds of investments do not contribute to creating permanent jobs or economic wealth which might have been a value of this program.
Everyone knows that this program is out of control. Nobody knows how much money has been properly invested, how much money sits collecting interest and how much money has been lost. Until last August this program was not even monitored by the government.
I oppose the business immigration program in principle. It creates two classes of immigrants, an elite group and a non-elite group. It allows wealthy people to buy their way into Canada while those who are not wealthy find it very difficult to immigrate. Many persons are excluded. I know many in my riding who would be good Canadian citizens, bringing energy and skills and hard work, but they are excluded because they cannot make enough points or do not have enough capital to buy their way in. Incidentally, the new fees for sponsors are not helping either. Many sponsoring relatives work at several low-paying jobs to try to bring relatives over and they are very hurt by long delays and frequent refusals, while others can buy their way in in very short time.
Business immigrants are given second highest priority in processing after the family class immigrants and refugees. They only need to receive 25 points to have their applications approved while 70 points is normally required by other immigrants. It is proof that money is power according to this government, it allows people to buy-their way into Canada. It also gives the wrong

February 12, 1990
Adjournment Debate
message to newcomers about Canadian values which I had hoped would be based on fairness and equality.
There is also a huge backlog of refugee claimants here in Canada who are still waiting for the decision as to whether or not they are going to be allowed to stay as landed immigrants. At the end of 1988 there were over 107,000 in this backlog, approximately 100,000 of whom had not even been given the initial interview. This is our new streamlined procedure.
In 1989, when the new refugee determination system was implemented, the government said there would be no further backlogs, yet 7,000 of the latest claimants are in a new backlog still waiting for a decision. Under the new system refugee claimants have had to wait up to four months for the credible basis hearing, which is only the second stage in the refugee determination process. What does the government intend to do to expedite this process?
We must also give refugee claimants work visas and language training while they are waiting so that they will have some security, and their children must have schooling.
Around the world thousands of refugees wait in refugee camps for a country to accept them, particularly in southeast Asian countries and in Hong Kong. There are many living in overcrowded living quarters with poor sanitary facilities where contagious diseases and outbreaks of violence are common. The daily arrival of more refugees is causing great strain on the limited facilities, particularly in Hong Kong, which is a very small place. And yet, while Canada openly criticizes the Hong Kong decision to repatriate these refugees, we have not opened our doors to take them in order to both help the refugees and alleviate the situation in Hong Kong.
New Democrats believe in a fairer immigration policy which considers family reunification as a top priority. In many cultures "family" has a broad meaning. It includes an extended family and this should be considered in our immigration policy. In a multicultural Canada we believe
the family should include extended family members in the family unit.
Immigrants in Canada face a very difficult time adjusting to their new environment and to the values of a new society, and yet the government is cutting back on the settlement language program. This is a good program but because of the lack of continuity in funding, it results in an ineffective program for many, women in particular. That should be changed.
We also have objected many times to the cut-backs in the Citizen Instruction in Language Training program, which will be cut out entirely by this government. This means that newcomers, particularly women and people who are not in the workforce, will not be able to get the kind of settlement services which they need.
I call on the minister once again to review and withdraw the Immigrant Investor Program and to reinstate the CILT program so that entry to Canada will be fair and equitable and new Canadians will have the assistance they need to settle quickly in a multicultural Canada.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to expand upon the reply given by the hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration to the hon. member for Vancouver East on December 13 concerning the Immigrant Investor Program.
In 1989, investor immigrants, their spouses and dependents accounted for 1.1 per cent of total immigration. Since its introduction in January 1986, approximately 3,000 investor immigrants, including spouses and dependents, have been granted landing. In that same period, the total immigration has exceeded 550,000 people.
Investor immigrants increase investment funds available for small and medium-sized businesses across Canada. The investor program itself is supported by all provinces and provides a meaningful and growing support tool to enhance regional and professional economic development in Canada. Immigrant investors' funds are intended primarily to increase and maintain Canadian employment. Nevertheless, the investor program is relatively new and has to be refined further. The govern-
February 12, 1990

ment has recognized this and has implemented measures to improve the administration of this program.
For example, on May 2, 1989, the minister announced the creation of the Business Advisory Committee to advise the minister on issues relating to business immigration. A business immigration unit has been established within Employment and Immigration Canada to concentrate on the effective operation of this program. An investor monitoring system has been developed and new regulations have been put in place. All of this has taken place in the context of ongoing negotiation and co-operation with the provinces.
Preliminary reports indicate that since 1986 this program has produced or maintained over 11,000 Canadian jobs with more to come. This is a program which not only creates jobs, but brings people, skills and capital to all parts of Canada. In short, the investor program benefits all regions of Canada. It is the intention of the government to continue working with its provincial partners to improve the program and to continue to attract investor immigrants to this country.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, my question this evening relates to an article that appeared in The Globe and Mail on November 29 of last year. I asked a question in the House on that same date and I will refer to that in a moment to refresh Your Honour's memory of the occasion.
The article of November 29 read in part as follows:
Internal Conservative Party documents reveal a proposal that, in certain circumstances, Tory fundraisers would remind potential corporate donors of federal government contracts they have received.
But documents obtained by The Globe and Mail show that there were detailed plans within the Progressive Conservative Canada Fund to set up a computerized system in which the file on each corporate donor would include a list of the number of government contracts, grants or policies that have benefited that corporation.
The Globe and Mail reporters did some interviews. They interviewed one Nicolas Locke, executive director of the PC Canada Fund. The article goes on:
Adjournment Debate
Nicolas Locke, executive director of the PC Canada Fund, the party's fundraising arm, confirmed in an interview last week that the party has computerized files on each corporate donor, and that the files were updated in 1986 after an internal review.
But Mr. Locke denied that the files contain information about government contracts, grants or policies beneficial to the company-
Mr. Locke also strongly denied that party fundraisers ever mention government contracts or grants when they discuss a donation with a donor or prospective donor.
"They're clearly directed not to do that," he said. "Some people in this world have gotten into trouble doing things like that, but they have not been associated with the PC Canada Fund."
Well, as a footnote, Mr. Speaker, they certainly were not but they were clearly associated with the PC Party of this country.
Then he went on:
Mr. Locke said that he suspects that soliciting donations from donors by reminding them of government business they have received would be not only improper but possibly illegal.
Imagine. He really thought about that one before he spoke. Then he went on:
"Our canvassers are told in no uncertain terms not to get involved in that sort of thing," he said. "If anybody started soliciting that way, they'd be drummed out."
Well, we know what happened to some of the cabinet ministers. Ten of them have been drummed out and we know that two of the Conservative back-benchers have been accused of illegal activities in connection with fundraising. One has been convicted and one is currently facing a host of charges.
We have evidence of impropriety in the Oerlikon land deals that seem to have been forgotten. While the story in The Globe and Mail may be of some interest, it only touches the tip of the iceberg. We can see how big the iceberg is when we look later in the story. In the third column it says:
Last year, the Conservatives dramatically outstripped the two major parties in raising money from the business community, collecting $14.3 million in corporate donations, compared to $8.4 million collected by the Liberals and $262,000 received by the New Democrats, according to public election records.
I would not want to suggest that the New Democratic Party is immune to this sort of thing because, after all, their fundraising is done through the unions and they pay for that in the way they are required to follow the dictates of the union bosses. We hear about that in the

Adjournment Debate
spats that arise between the government members and the New Democrats from time to time in the House.
As a result of all this I put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister on November 29.1 asked him if he would tell the House whether in fact the government sent lists of persons who received government contracts to anybody, and specifically to the PC Canada Fund. The Deputy Prime Minister, in his first answer, said that I was referring to a discredited stoiy and I need not worry about it. He did not answer my question. I then asked him if he would tell us whether he would instruct his bagmen to appear before the Election Reform Commission that he has established to reveal their practices and their lists. He sloughed off the question by saying, as reported at page 6374 of Hansard:
-if the hon. member wants to make reference to the commission about who should appear or who should not appear, he can make that representation directly to the commission.
It is my submission, first, that the Deputy Prime Minister has an obligation to answer my question, and I hope when we hear from the parliamentary secretary, although I am sure he is reluctant to get to his feet on this one, that he will tell us that these lists are not forwarded to the PC Canada Fund and that there are in fact no such lists.
But I suspect that there are such lists and I would like to know to whom they are made available. Certainly the lists could be compiled from answers we can put on the Order Paper in this House and certainly they come out in press releases. I think that members of this House should know whether in fact these lists are prepared by the government and forwarded to the PC Canada Fund so they can be put on this computer.
If they are, it supports the story in The Globe and Mad. It gives evidence of potential risk of wrong-doing and I think we ought to take steps to see that that sort of risk is minimized.
After ten resignations from the cabinet, and I can think of only two prosecutions under the Criminal Code for offences relating to fundraising, I think it is time that the government took stern measures, and I think that is putting it mildly, to ensure that this kind of conduct does not continue.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a member of the second oldest profession in the world, that is why they are sometimes called solicitors. That is what he was going through today.
I believe the hon. member's question stems from newspaper articles which appeared in late November of last year. Those articles referred to a draft report dating back to 1986, which report was never adopted. Indeed, I understand that the lists of government contracts are not and never have been used by PC Canada Fund. I hope that puts the matter to rest.
The hon. member has also raised questions with respect to the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Finance. The government's intention to establish this commission of inquiry was announced in the Speech from the Throne to open the second session of the Thirty-fourth Parliament on November 15, 1989. The Prime Minister announced the establishment of a commission to inquire into and report on the appropriate principles and process that should govern the election of members of the House of Commons and the financing of political parties and candidates' campaigns.
The Prime Minister further indicated that this study would include an examination of the practices, procedures and legislation in Canada; the means by which which political parties should be funded, the provision of the funds to the political parties from any source and the limits of such funding and the uses to which such funds ought or ought not be put; and the qualification of electors and the compiling of voters' lists, including the advisability of the establishment of a permanent voters' list.
I understand that in mid-January the chairman of the commission, Mr. Pierre Lortie, wrote to various people, including all members of this House, inviting them to participate at public hearings. I am sure the hon. member received the letter as I did. I hope he will make his submission. In addition, public notices were published in newspapers across the country requesting all those who wish to express an opinion to provide relevant information and to submit a written brief to the commission by March 9, 1990.
I understand that the commission plans to begin public hearings in the spring. The government has long recognized the need to amend and improve our electoral laws. Indeed, many important amendments were introduced in the last Parliament in Bill C-79. Unfortunately, the
February 12, 1990

government was not able to secure the co-operation of the Liberal and New Democratic parties to allow passage of even those portions of the bill to which all parties had agreed.
The government hopes that the important work undertaken by the commission will help develop a consensus on many complex issues. The commission is uniquely qualified to provide advice on the principles and the process that governs elected representatives and their respective political parties. The government looks forward to receiving that advice.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, when I rose on December 8 in this House, the nation was stunned and sorrowing because of the horrific slaying of the young women students in Montreal.
At that time I asked the Prime Minister a series of questions, questions to which he and the Minister of Employment and Immigration made some response. My questions were simple. First, I asked the Prime Minister whether he would agree to the appointment of a joint House of Commons and Senate committee to seek solutions to the all-pervasive problem of violence against women in Canada.
Second, I asked whether the Prime Minister intended to consult with representatives of women's groups in order to take advantage of their particular expertise and wipe out violence against women.
Third, I asked whether the Prime Minister would undertake to restore funding to the women's programs, at least those dealing with violence against women that were slashed by 15 per cent.
At that time the Prime Minister and the Minister of Employment and Immigration who, of course, as we all know, is also the minister responsible for the status of women, made a commendable effort to demonstrate how appalled this government was by the events in Montreal.
The Prime Minister stressed that he had met the students from the University of Montreal and that this government is using any number of means to wipe out
Adjournment Debate
such violence. Unfortunately, this is just another example of how words come more cheaply than actions.
The depth of the problem has not lessened simply because time has passed since the massacre in Montreal. However, this government's commitment to eradicating violence against women has not only lessened, it makes most of us think that it is non-existent.
The fact remains that no joint House of Commons and Senate committee has been appointed. Women's programs across the board have been slashed by 15 per cent and, if the Prime Minister has met on any form of official basis with groups committed to erasing violence against women, he certainly has not told us about it. I suspect that if he had, he would have.
What will it take for this government to finally open its eyes and recognize that it must do something. Yes, the situation in Montreal was horrific because of the circumstances and the number of young women who died. But every day in Canada women are beaten, women are abused, and women die. Action is needed. Action is needed now. It is not enough just to recognize that the problem exists. We all recognize that the problem exists. The time has come to do something, to say something, and to act.
On one hand the Prime Minister claims that this is one of the most serious problems in our society, but it seems that this is the extent to which the Prime Minister is prepared to go. Programs are underfunded. Women's groups have not been called upon to assist in the creation of a strategy to remedy this situation and, most absurd, the Prime Minister has not utilized the resources at his disposal to appoint a House of Commons and Senate committee which could hear the immediate responses of many groups across this country with good ideas as to how we stem the tide of violence against women.
So what do we have? We have a government that is committed to inaction. I do not for a moment suggest that the horrific events that occurred in Montreal and the day-to-day violence against women do not touch members on the government side as much as they touch members on the opposition side. But I do suggest that there does not seem to be a political will on the other side to act.
I have asked questions in this House before, relating to the special initiatives program to stem the tide of violence against women, as it pertains to transition houses. The answer I get is that less than a quarter of the money has been spent. What do I hear from women's groups across Canada involved in transition houses? I

February 12, 1990
Adjournment Debate
hear that when they contact the federal government they do not get a response, they do not hear, they do not know how to go about accessing the money that was promised over 18 months ago.
I certainly hope that the hon. parliamentary secretary has some good news for us on this issue. It is time for the government to act and make a legitimate effort to end violence against women. The fact of the matter is that if he does not act, then the Prime Minister does not see this as one of the most serious problems in our society.
Fifty-two per cent of the population of this country has reason to fear more than the other 48 per cent of the population of this country. It is wrong. We all know it. But it does no good to stand in this House and pontificate. It does no good to say yes, we care, if we do not act, and action costs money. The only thing that is going to save the lives and the sanity and the dignity of Canadian women who are daily in jeopardy is government action and government money and it has to start now.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, members on both sides of the House have rightly expressed their indignation about the tragic events that occurred last December. In our efforts to understand what lay behind the horrifying massacre of 14 young women at the University of Montreal, we have tried to find reasons and explanations for the senseless and inexplicable act of a profoundly disturbed individual. Marc Lepine acted alone. However, his actions have shown to what extent violence can permeate society.
Our government is now making a concerted effort to reduce the manifestations of this violence. Through measures announced last year to fight family violences,
$40 million is being spent on protection, treatment and prevention. The federal government is also working very closely with the provinces and the non-governmental sector on developing a comprehensive national strategy to fight family violence in this country. In fact, the forum on family violence held last June was a veiy important part of this process, as the hon. member should know. We expect to be able to announce a national strategy next spring. I hope it will be a satisfactory response to her request that we create a special joint committee of the House and the Senate, which I don't think would be the answer and would not produce the results this forum will provide for the government and, of course, for women and children who are victims of violence.
I would also like to recall that in 1987, this government passed legislation to deal with child sexual abuse. We will be talking about this very shortly.
Mr. Speaker, violence is not some impersonal force like wind or rain. Violence exists because people are capable of violence. Governments cannot legislate attitudes. However, we can introduce programs and take measures that promote changes in attitude. That is what we have done with our measures to combat violence, and that is why many of these measures support the efforts deployed by non-governmental organizations to improve people's perceptions and relationships with each other.
Mr. Speaker, we all, and I am sure the hon. member will agree, want to put an end to violence towards women, children and the most vulnerable in our society. It is the most earnest wish of this government and your humble servant.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.29 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 13, 1990