1990-03-22

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



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Brian White (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to retable, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-40, an act respecting broadcasting and to amend certain acts in relation thereto and in relation to radio communication.
This retabling corrects clerical errors in the version of the report tabled Tbesday, March 20, 1990. I want to assure the House that the bill as ordered reprinted by the committee is correct.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been here for some time and I have not heard of retabling a report. I am wondering if the member who just spoke wants the other report to be withdrawn and this one put on the record instead. If that is what he is doing, we agree with that.


Brian White: Just to clarify, Mr. Speaker, when the report was originally tabled on Tbesday, March 20,1 was
informed afterwards that there were some mistakes in the translation of some of the amendments so I would wish the original report to be withdrawn and this to replace it.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



BILL C-61 TABLING OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT

['Agreed.']
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Beausejour):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-61, an Act to amend the Divorce Act, with amendments.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present petitions in this House today. They have been certified correct as to form and content under Standing Order 36. They are signed by 281 residents of the city of Thunder Bay and surrounding areas.
The petitioners reject the government's proposed goods and services tax and call upon the government instead to reform the taxation system so there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition on behalf of a number of citizens from all across Canada. In fact, there are a few names here from as far away as Australia and the United States. The petition is with regard to VIA Rail.

March 22, 1990
Routine Proceedings
These petitioners ask Parliament to upgrade VIA with new equipment and make sure that the passenger train act is passed, which would allow VIA Rail to give the kind of service Canada needs.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a petition to present which was signed mainly by residents of Sackville, a community in my riding. The petitioners want to voice their opposition to the new goods and services tax. They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, once again I rise in the House pursuant to Standing Order 36. Whereas it has been proposed that a goods and service tax will be levied on skating lessons including instructors fees, facility rentals, equipment purchases and other related skating expenses, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to consider instruction in skating as an educational service and, therefore, exempt skating educational expenses from the proposed goods and services tax.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty to table five petitions today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, which have been found correct as to form and content. These petitioners object strongly to the government's proposal to impose upon Canadians a tax of 7 per cent on all goods and services as of January 1, 1991.
These petitioners think this proposal of the government will be hidden from Canadians and, therefore, will impose a very unfair tax on all of them. The tax will be on all goods and services and will cause serious and unfair hardship for low and middle-income Canadians. The petitioners say that the GST of 7 per cent will create an onerous burden on small businesses and, therefore, strongly oppose the imposition of this goods and services tax which is, in their opinion, an unprecedented tax grab from the pockets of Canadians which will hit them not only with higher taxes, but with higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment.
Gallup says that the Tories are at 17 per cent today, and they should not be doing this.


Mr. Speaker:: Whatever the hon. member may have read, or whatever the polls may say, he knows that the presentation of a petition is not the place to make a speech.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Well at 17 per cent they should not be doing that.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is smiling. He knows well- better than most of us.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from hundreds of citizens in the constituency of Notre-Dame-de-Grace in Montreal who strongly oppose the goods and services tax which they say is an unprecedented tax grab from the pockets of Canadians and that it will hit them not only with higher taxes, but with higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment. They ask the government to withdraw this tax and to return to the drawing board.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of Canadian voters who are opposed to the GST. Your petitioners call upon the government to withdraw the GST bill it tabled in Parliament.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 226 will be answered today.


Mr. Milliken: For each year from 1985 to 1989, did the government incur costs in operating its VI.P. fleet of Challenger aircraft and, if so, in total, what were they?


Hon. William Hunter McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: With respect to the Department of National Defence, the govemement incurred the following incremental costs, from 1986 to 1989, (incremental aircraft
March 22, 1990

operating costs, travel or temporary duty expenses of flight crew, and aircraft landing fees and related services) in operating administrative flight services:
-the Department of National Defence became the sole administrator of the Administrative Flight Services in 1986;
-for fiscal year 1986/87, the use of eight Challenger aircraft resulted in a total incremental flight cost of $10,361,000;
-for fiscal year 1987/88, the use of eight Challenger aircraft resulted in a total incremental flight cost of $12,508,000; and
-for fiscal year 1988/89, the use of eight Challenger aircraft resulted in a total incremental flight cost of $10,933,000.
Note: Administrative Flight Services (AFS) was established essentially as a national and international air transport service for the Royal Family, the Governor General and the Prime Minister. A secondary use is for Ministers ou Parliamentarians and their staffs for departmental or government purposes. Apart from such uses, the Department itself employs these aircraft for V.I.P. transport, medical evacuations and demonstrations.


Mr. Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 229 could be made an Order for Return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Comuzzi: For each of the last three fiscal years, for each individual or
organization (a) located in Canada that received grants or
contributions from the CIDA budget (b) engaged by CIDA on a
contractual basis, what is the (i) name (ii) address of the recipient or
Point of Order
contractor (iii) amount granted or disbursed (iv) purpose of the
grant or contract?
Return tabled.


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


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, members of my party have been approaching the Whip's office with regard to the situation for tomorrow. I think there are rumours on all sides of the equation.
On the Order Paper members will find that there is one proposition for a possible opposition day that would carry a vote with it. It is my understanding that sometime yesterday that motion was provided to the Table. That would constitute one element of 48 hours' notice, perhaps, of the intention to have a vote on a Friday.
It is my contention, Mr. Speaker-and I think you are going to have to rule hopefully fairly quickly today-and if you look at the intent of our Standing Orders, you will see that there are two elements required in order to have a confidence vote on a Friday. One, that the government give 48 hours' notice of the intention to have an opposition day on a particular day. Two, that the opposition gives notice of a specific motion which would be votable and their intention to have that vote.


Mr. Speaker:: Was that not done by the opposition?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I contend, Mr. Speaker, that the House will have certitude about the motion to be debated tomorrow at approximately six o'clock tonight. It is possible throughout this day to have more than one motion brought forward by more than one party. We have faced those situations in the past, in which case that has to be sorted out and a decision has to be made.


Mr. Speaker:: Did the opposition not move and indicate their intention to have a votable day on Friday as of last night before six o'clock, or am I in error?

March 22, 1990
Point of Order


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, one party in the chamber put forward a motion. The situation we were in yesterday was that one of the parties in the chamber put forward a motion, the essence of which was to say to the House that if there were to be an opposition day on Friday, they would like that motion to be votable, thus, in theory, constituting 48 hours' notice.
If the decision to hold a vote of confidence on a Friday, which is a very serious undertaking by this Chamber, can be determined in that kind of unilateral fashion we face the following situation: a party, or more than one party, could place on the Order Paper notice of a motion and the intention to hold a vote on a Friday and leave it there permanently, thus constituting 48 hours' or more notice for a month ahead of time, two months ahead of time or six months ahead of time.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it takes a second element, which would be 48 hours' notice of the government's intention to call that day. When the two things come together-48 hours' notice by the government, 48 hours' notice by the opposition-you can indeed face the situation of five members rising in their place and causing the Friday confidence vote to occur.
If it is a one-sided designation, entirely in the hands of the opposition, then every single Friday from now to eternity could potentially culminate in a vote of confidence at the end of the day, if we were to designate it as a supply day. It would perhaps take the choice of a Friday from the government's arsenal and its responsibility for ordering the business of the House.
It also leaves members under a different kind of threat. Members right now are having to decide whether to keep their commitments to very important public events that may take place later this day or tomorrow morning, from Vancouver Island to the Yukon to Newfoundland.
Resting in the hands of the opposition at this moment is the opportunity to come forward with a different motion. It has that opportunity right up until sue o'clock today. No opposition day has yet been designated, but if we were to stand in the Chamber at this moment and designate tomorrow to be a supply day, the Official Opposition and the third party of the House have until six o'clock tonight to put forward a motion for debate
tomorrow. There is one on the Order Paper that deals with the issue of a vote, but others that came forward today might not.
The wording of the current motion could be changed in some fashion and the intention to have a vote could be put forward, but if that comes forward between now and six o'clock tonight, that vote will occur on Monday. So throughout this day members are under the threat that the circumstances they are preparing for can change.
This particular change came out of the McGrath report and it was consistent with other changes. At least some of those changes were dedicated to the notion that to serve the people of the nation well, to operate in a democratic fashion in the best interests of our constituents, members needed a better sense of planning. That is why we came to a parliamentary calendar and a to variety of different rules.
We recognized, in the creation of the Standing Orders, the importance of confidence votes and the need for notice in relation to that so members could be present. But we came to a special set of rules regarding confidence votes on Fridays. We said that there should be 48 hours' or, in parliamentary terms, two days' notice because Friday is a day when members frequently have other obligations away from Ottawa. They would require two days' notice of two elements: that the confidence vote would be occurring on the Friday and that the government was designating it as a supply day.
Because of the confusion currently in members' minds, Mr. Speaker, I think we need you and your people to review the Standing Orders to take into account this argument and some arguments that others in the House may want to present, but to get back to the House as quickly as possible. The government very likely might designate tomorrow as a supply day-


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: It has to. It has no choice.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: -but the government and members need to know whether my interpretation of the Standing Order is correct, that there are two elements required to be met before a confidence vote can be forced to occur on a Friday. They are the designation 48 hours in advance that it will indeed be a supply day and the notice of the motion from the opposition also occurring with 48 hours' notice.
March 22, 1990

If we leave ourselves open to the notion that the opposition can put down a motion in perpetuity about Fridays that stops us from ever having Friday opposition days without votes, then I think we are running counter to the intent of those regulations and to the intent of the McGrath committee and its efforts to help us develop a better way of conducting the nation's business.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier in a moment. I want to ask a question. Is not part of the problem that there is a time period into which two more supply days must occur between now and Monday? Am I incorrect in that?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that the parliamentary secretary to the government House Leader is prepared to rise at some point today-it could be immediately if you prefer-on another point of order related to the number of supply days that are left in this period. Some arguments can be made.
But we need certitude for the immmediate future and in the long term. Do our Standing Orders provide for the possibility that the opposition, either or both parties, can put a motion on notice requiring a Friday vote which sits there in perpetuity and can be activated on any particular Friday that the government chooses to name? If the government rises on a Thursday and designates Friday as an opposition day-which constitutes a rather regular pattern around here, that we give 24 hours' notice of the business for the next day-that faces a 48-hour notice period that is on that Order Paper in perpetuity. I think then that we have obviated the whole purpose of treating confidence votes as very important and something on which members should clearly have 48 hours' notice when they occur on a Friday.
So I am saying that if we designate tomorrow today, then the vote should occur on Monday because that would constitute the necessary notice to members.


Mr. Speaker:: While we are discussing this we may as well go on to the next stage. Are we in a position where two more supply days must be allotted between now and Monday? If that is the case, the hon. member puts forth a very reasoned position. But if, on the other hand, we are caught in a situation in which two supply days must take place between now and Monday, whatever merit the hon. member's argument has does not seem to me to
Point of Order
solve the problem. I am quite prepared to hear the whole argument now, and I think maybe we should.
I will come to the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier in a moment.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We have arguments to make too, Mr. Speaker. This is a dialogue.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) in a minute.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add perhaps the second element of the point of order raised by my colleague, the Whip for the government.
As the Speaker is aware, there was a special order passed in this House on April 4, 1989, and June 27,1989, which provided for six allotted days to be votable in the September to December supply period. This order superseded the Standing Orders providing for a total of no more than four votable supply days in any one period. For example, September to December, January to March, or the other period of April to June.
If we go back through what has happened we will find there were votable opposition days, or allotted days, on October 2, 12, 19, 30, 31, and then again on December 5 and 6, again on February 1, and another one, the eighth, on March 15.
As a result, with the six allotted days in the September to December 1989 supply period, and assuming that a supply cycle runs from September to the end of June, then adding the two votable days in the period that we are now in of January to March, I would argue that the opposition has had the maximum allowable votable days, which is the eight. We think that that is the case. As a result of that we argue that Friday cannot therefore be a votable supply day.


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to hear the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier in a moment and I am going to hear him completely and fully. What was the basis upon which the special order was made? What was the understanding? Am I supposed to believe that as a consequence of that understanding the opposition gave up two supply days? That is the proposition that is being put to me. Maybe they did, but I want to know.

Point of Order
The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, some positions are extremely difficult to defend, but in this case, the government's position is untenable. Yesterday, the government had an opportunity to designate today as an opposition day. It did not, because it was obsessed with imposing closure on a bill. They forgot that before adjournment of the House, they could have designated Thursday, March 22, as an opposition day, and possibly next Monday, since according to the Standing Orders, March 26 shall be the last opposition day, and they knew perfectly well we had an opposition day scheduled for that date.
I may remind the government and those who are in charge that designating an opposition day is their responsibility. However, they must comply with certain provisions of the Standing Orders. Although there was a special agreement last year because of exceptional circumstances, I may remind the House that Standing Order 81(8) reads as follows:
For the period ending not later than December 10, six sitting days shall be allotted to the business of supply.
Opposition days, in other words.
Nine additional days shall be allotted to the business of supply in the period ending not later than March 26.
Mr. Speaker, we then have ten days left. The text goes on to say:
Ten additional days shall be allotted to the business of supply in the period ending not later than June 30. These twenty-five days are to be designated as allotted days.
Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of a standing order that says we must wait for the government to designate a day before it is allotted. If the government was negligent and failed to comply with the Standing Orders of the House, all I can say is that it's a lost cause. We in the Opposition knew you had to give us two opposition days by March 26. We knew yesterday was March 21. We also knew it was the New Democratic Party's turn, because we take turns taking opposition days. The two last days were coming up. Monday will be ours, because we operate two to one, on the basis of the number of members in each party. There are twice as many Liberals as New Democrats, so we have two days more than they do.


Some hon. members:: Really!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Those are the facts. What can I say? It may be sad for some people but facts are facts..
Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of a single standing order that could be used by the government whip, although I admit he put up a good defence, but just the same, it was not entirely convincing. I admit he defended his case, but not convincingly. We still have six votes. We had eight, but we only used two, so there are six left, and it is up to us to determine whether those days are votable or non-votable. I know today's Order Paper contains a motion in the name of Mr. Hovdebo, filed in the appropriate manner, which says:
Opposition motion for the Supply period ending March 26,1990.
-which will be next, and pursuant to Standing Orders 81(14) and 81(12), it will be votable and is not deferrable. The vote cannot be deferred. The vote must take place tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. There is nothing I or the government can do about it. The situation is quite straightforward, Mr. Speaker, and the Standing Orders are clear. I think the government will have to acknowledge they were sleeping on the job yesterday and failed to do what they notably should have done, which was to designate today as an opposition day. This morning, we thought about it, and we were saying: Maybe, considering the proviso under Projected Order of Business which reads "subject to change without notice", the government will change today's order to call Bill C-65 and decide to make this an opposition day. However, after some more thinkings we concluded it could not do that because otherwise it would have had to give notice yesterday. So I say to the government: It's just tough!, Too bad, but that's the way it is. They should have realized there is more to this game than closure and time allocation. Strategy is also part of it, but the government has been lacking in strategy, Mr. Speaker.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I rise on a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker.
I always appreciate the spirit with which my friend enters into debate. However, he seems to have forgotten that when we approached the table last evening for knowledge of whether or not notice had been given about the intention of a vote on Friday, we were informed that the motion which would appear on the
March 22, 1990

Order Paper this morning was embargoed. We had no information about it.
He may have had 48 hours' notice. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt of the New Democratic Party may have notified his members; but the government was not notified. There was not 48 hours' notice available to the government about the intention to have this vote.
Therefore, I suggest on that ground, in addition, there seemed to be the element that he knew something that we did not know. We were at the table requesting information. The person who put the motion on the table obviously asked for it to be embargoed. That is a choice which he made, but he chose deliberately to withhold the notice from all the members of the Chamber. I think that may add a somewhat different element to this matter. In fact, it may help you, Sir, to rule on this particular situation.
I think we have the general case, which I raised earlier, of whether or not a member of the opposition can simply put a permanent motion on the Order Paper which constitutes 48 hours' notice, forever and ever. I suggest that breaks the whole intent with respect to arranging the parliamentary calendar.
If you want to deal with the specific choice to embargo the information from the government, Mr. Speaker, then that clearly tells the House that members on this side of the House did not have the required 48 hours' notice in this particular case.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, since the question was put to me, I would like to reply.
Indeed, I think the question is important, and I did address the question in the debate in this House on the Message from the Senate concerning Bill C-21. I am sure the hon. member will recognize that I did, at that time, raise the issue. There are not very many motions of which opposition members are not given prior notice. However, there is one instance when that occurs. It is when a message comes from the Senate and a motion to address that message, either in the negative or in the affirmative, is made by the government. We, the opposition, are not told of that position or that motion until the minister has finished speaking on the message. That is totally unacceptable.
There is nothing unacceptable about a motion being put to the House and notice be given on the Order
Point of Order
Paper. There is nothing in the books, as far as I know, that forces the opposition to give notice to the government before the Order Paper is printed.
As a matter of fact, we could do what the government does with us on the question of Messages from the Senate. We could say to the government: "Wait until the Order Paper is printed before you find out what happens".
I will tell the government more than that. We have thought of putting 15 motions on the Order Paper, so the government can keep 15 ministers in place the night before and then find out the next day which motion we are going to call. We could do that. But we are not doing it because we are trying to get co-operation from the government.
I am asking the government whip to plead with his House leader to change some of the dispositions in the Order Paper which make it impossible sometimes for us to get advance notice of motions and the government's intention to move on certain things. I think that is very important.
I do not think he has a case today. The government was given notice yesterday at a quarter to six-


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: No, we were not.


Iain Francis Angus: A quarter to seven.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: A quarter to seven, I am sorry.
If you got it this morning, it is still in order; it is not a point of order. I am told you got it at 6.45.1 will let the NDP talk to that point.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I could hear the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, and then I will come back to the hon. member for Calgary West.


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, in the last while, the government has been in the habit of making untenable arguments. I think this is just one more example-


Mr. Speaker:: I am not interested in debate. We have a difficult procedural matter which I want addressed, and I want it addressed very exactly and succinctly. I know the hon. member will help the Chair.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, all the appropriate notices have been given. Indeed, as has been mentioned, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, yesterday was

March 22, 1990
Point of Order
informed at 6.45 that this motion would be votable. So I do not quite understand the point that is being made.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: That is not true. We went to the table. It was embargoed. They wouldn't tell us.


Chris Axworthy: In any case, the government really is the author of its own problem.
It designated Wednesday as an opposition day, and then on Thesday undesignated it. We knew there would be two days before March 26, as we have heard and, by deduction, that Friday would be an opposition day. It was agreed that it would be a New Democrat opposition day.
If we had not had the revocation of its commitment to have Wednesday as our supply day, then this problem would not have arisen. Neither would it have arisen if the government had designated today as an opposition day.
It is really a problem within the government House leader's office, rather than anywhere else.
On the point about the arrangement made last April, this was clearly a special arrangement. Mr. Speaker, you alluded to this. There was a clear understanding that once the House began again in January, we would start with a fresh slate and there would be eight votable opposition days in the 1990 year. I think if you reviewed the special order, Mr. Speaker, you would find that that in fact was the case.
As with all these matters, they are open to the normal method for negotiation and discussion. That would have been an appropriate way of addressing it.
I think the matter is quite clear. Tomorrow is a New Democrat opposition day. It is a votable day. I think we are faced with that quite clearly.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, you had asked what was the intention of the House orders that were passed. You asked if there was a willingness on the part of the opposition to give up two allotted days.
In fact what happened with those particular special orders was that the opposition was given two additional allotted votes during that time cycle. To refresh the
memories of hon. members, the reason it was done was to accommodate the fact that the House came back later because of the debates that had gone on before. This was an assistance to the opposition.
I think it is very important, too, to take a look at Standing Order 81(14) which provides for four votable allotted days in any one time period.
It goes on to state: "-provided that not more than eight opposition motions in total shall be motions that shall come to a vote during the three supply periods provided-".
We believe that the supply period runs from September to June. It commenced in September. There have been six allotted days which came to a vote prior to the December timeframe, plus two more that we have had since that time, in February and in March. As a result we have come to the maximum of eight which is allowed under Standing Order 81(14).
I think it is very clear that that in fact was the intention.
The Speaker also asked me the question as to whether or not in the special order this was addressed. In fact, it was not. The issue was silent. As I understand it from our side, there was certainly no intention to put us in a position of having to face additional votes in this second timeframe. There has always been that provision for a maximum of eight. It was an intention on our part to accommodate some of the earlier days back in September to make sure that the opposition did have those allotted days.
We believe that our arguments do stand and that in fact the eight days that are allowed by the rules to come to a vote have already happened. We believe on that basis that Friday definitely could not be an allotted day.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary West.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond to my friend from the New Democratic Party, who may or may not be aware of this. I want it made absolutely clear that as the government whip and as a House officer I have certain responsibilities in this Chamber related to votes. As such, I approached the table last evening somewhere between 6.20 and 6.30 to make an inquiry as to whether a votable opposition motion had been presented to the table because I was aware of the notice provisions.
March 22, 1990

I was informed by the table that, yes, there was a motion but that information about it was embargoed by the people who had given it to the table. I was told that I would have to see it in the Order Paper this morning.
That decision in this specific instance makes it impossible for us without unanimous consent to have a vote tomorrow. It is a confidence motion. It requires 48 hours' notice. As the person responsible as a House officer, I was not allowed to have the 48 hours' notice that obviously the New Democratic Party seemed to have, and which I suggest perhaps the Official Opposition had.
I requested it from the table. I was told that the party that had presented the motion had embargoed that information and it could not be given to me. Therefore, there was a clear intent in this specific instance-and it does not deal with the general case-that, clearly, as the government whip, I did not have 48 hours' notice and therefore 48 hours of opportunity to inform my members of the possibility of a vote.


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to come to the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands in a moment. I want to hear the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan first.
In trying to find a way through this matter, whatever the rules may or may not require I am puzzled at why there would be this embargo under these circumstances. What was the purpose of that?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Political, to embarrass the government.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Thunder Bay- Atikokan.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I hope I can assist you in your deliberations on this matter. Part of the problem is that our House leader is not here today. We are having to rely on signals to the back to get some information to which we ourselves were not privy.
I have a couple of points of clarification, if I may, Mr. Speaker. The assistant to the House leader of the New Democratic Party advised the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader at approximately 6.45 last night of the fact that the motion was to be votable. In attendance at that discussion was the government House leader's assistant, Mr. MacKenzie. We clearly did what
Point of Order
we felt was appropriate in terms of advising the government of our intention.
It would seem that the government is suggesting that there should be two sets of rules. One is for the government in terms of the amount of notice the opposition will get as to what day shall be a supply day and whether or not it is votable. The second is that we should have a longer period to advise the government that it is going to be votable. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to review that particular aspect.
I am also advised that we did indicate to the table that it be embargoed. I do not want anyone to think that the table took it upon itself to put in place the embargo. However, we did provide the government with the text of the motion on Thesday of this week. I am advised that the government had full knowledge of the content of the motion. It knew, irrespective of the point of order raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, of the number of allotted days and whether or not there were two votable days between now and Monday and that there was a good chance we would use our right to have a votable motion.
The other point I would like to make is with regard to the special order last fall. I took part in the negotiations, having filled in for the House leader at that time. I would ask that you, Sir, check the actual wording to see whether the motion was worded in such a way that it was notwithstanding any special or standing order. I believe there was a caveat stating that this was a one-time situation and that we covered ourselves in that regard. However, I do not have a copy of it in front of me.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate very much the help I am receiving from the hon. member. Does anyone have a copy of that special order? Could it be brought to the table?
I am fully cognizant, as your servant, that this is a procedural matter and I must deal with it as such. I want to be absolutely sure in my own mind about this. Did or did not the government know last night? There seems to be a conflict of facts here. I want it to be straightened out.

March 22, 1990
Point of Order


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, may I contribute to that? I have laid out information for the House that I went to the table between 6.20 and 6.30.1 asked and was told that it was embargoed. I, as the whip, did that. I think there were witnesses to that, and the table can confirm that for you very easily.
What the whip of the New Democratic Party has said is that one of his staff people approached the Parliamentary Secretary to the government House Leader with information about the votability of the motion at 6.45. This was some 25 minutes after I went to the table, but some 45 minutes after the normal close of business at which point it would have been possible for the government to do the allotting.
We were informed through other channels that the clock had run out at six o'clock because the notice period had run out at six o'clock. Certainly, I think it is clear, and all that you need to be seized with at this point, is that at 6.20 to 6.30, some 20 to 30 minutes after the notice had to be filed, the embargo was certainly in place from the table's point of view and was communicated to me at that point.
I had an opportunity at the conclusion of the vote to provide information to my members before they started to disperse, but without having the notice, the chance to communicate was lost. The whole purpose of notice is for members to have certitude as much as possible about their world. It may have been inadvertent on the part of the New Democratic Party's caucus to put in place that embargo, but certainly the table felt at 6.20 that it could not give me as the Chief Government Whip that piece of information. I was told directly that I would have to wait to see what it said on the Order Paper this morning.
In a technical sense the government is quite frequently in the difficult position of getting a verbal communication when in fact there is a written communication which is official. You must always be careful. In the past, on opposition days, and it has been many, many months now, Mr. Speaker, we have in our possession by six o'clock or shortly thereafter a printed copy of the motion and a printed copy of the intention of whether it is votable or not. That is the normal expectation that I would have as the Chief Government Whip that at six o'clock the night before I have this information.
Last night the table would not give it to me. I just want to make that clear. The fact that at 6.45 there was a conversation between a staff person of the New Democratic Party and our parliamentary secretary may be helpful, but it is not official.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan further, and I will come to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands in a moment.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the government whip's comments. One of the questions that Your Honour will have to decide upon is whether an opposition party has the right to have the table embargo such information. We thought we were doing what was appropriate in terms of advising the government verbally. There is nothing in the rules that I know of that requires us to provide it with a written indication that a motion will be votable.


Mr. Speaker:: One moment, please. I want to make it very clear I am not even raising that issue. It was a conflict in what I have been hearing and I wanted it straightened out. Sometimes the Chair has to make procedural rulings based on what the circumstances really are and some common sense. But I am not for one minute putting up for grabs the issue as to whether or not the table is required to release information under the procedure that was followed last night.
As I understand it, the procedure is exactly the same for both sides of the House. I will listen to the hon. member further.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate those comments. I only have a couple more points to make.
Just as an observation, there is a chronic problem with notice. We might want to at some point refer that for consideration. For example, the government can give notice of a motion on Friday and move it on Monday morning. The earliest that we could technically see the text is on Saturday when the Order Paper is produced. There are some problems there and this may just be another element of that.
I should point out that from our point of view this is only a notice of motion. The government has not as of yet allocated Friday as an opposition day. I think that it has no choice given the other Standing Orders. However, this motion or the votability issue could in fact be withdrawn. If the government had wished to concern
March 22, 1990

itself with that aspect, as opposed to raising the point here, we would have been more than happy to discuss it.
As a final comment, Mr. Speaker, I hope that you uphold our right to decide when we should have a votable motion. It is up to the government to allocate the days. It waited until the last minute, assuming that it is going to do it later, after you rule, for tomorrow. It is important for the opposition to have the right to say that it is going to be votable when it so deems it.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, there are two principal issues that I think Your Honour needs to deal with here. One is the argument advanced by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader concerning the number of supply days remaining in the period and, in particular, the number of votable days remaining in the period.
I know he has referred to the special order adopted in this House on April 4 last year which was subsequently modified, but I do not think in a matter that is relevant for our purposes.
What that motion did quite explicitly was change the number of votable days in one of the periods.
If Your Honour recalls the reasons why this motion was passed, you will recall that the House did not sit last January, February or March until April 3. Thus the entire supply proceedings got out of whack.
The government, in an effort to salvage something from the confusion which existed at that time, got the House to agree to a motion, which we agreed to on April 4, just after Parliament reconvened. I believe it started on April 3, which was the second day of the new session. We agreed to changes in the number of supply days. There were 12 days allotted before Friday, June 16, six of which were to be votable, and then a further 13 for the period ending December 10, six of which were to be votable. Therefore it was a change in the number of votables and that was a sop to the opposition because we were losing days in the normal supply period in that the government had failed to come into this House and present its Estimates in a timely way and allow the usual debate on supply to proceed in January, February and March. That was the reason for this change. It did not say anything about changes beyond those periods specified in this order.
Point of Order
On December 20 of last year, the House adopted another special order regarding supply. It was on the adjournment of the House for Christmas. Again, Your Honour will recall that part of the reason for this was that the Christmas holiday was extended by an additional week at the government's request and the opposition apparently, from the terms of this, gave up one of its supply days in the period.
In other words, the number was reduced from nine to eight. I can only assume it was because a week was taken off the normal sitting time. The order adopted on December 20 said in part: "That the number of allotted days in the period ending not later than March 26, 1990 be reduced from nine to eight". The seventh and eighth days are still to take place. One can only go to the normal rules of the House relating to the number of votable days in a supply period to determine the number of votable days, and not go back and start counting up all the special days that were created by virtue of the order made last April.
The parliamentary secretary is going back and counting up those extra votes in that period and saying those do not apply. The Standing Orders are quite clear. The parliamentary secretary is shaking his head.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He has a headache.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: He may well have a headache. I can understand that. I expect that is why the government House leader is unable to be here. He probably has a splitting headache.
There are to be up to four votable days in the period, and the parliamentary secretary knows that. They have not taken place and another votable day is available. Accordingly, in my submission it is quite clear that there is a votable day available. It can be designated as votable. We can only proceed from there.
Let us go back to the other argument about the 48 hours' notice. Perhaps the government whip has forgotten that the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader raised this issue on Monday, October 30. Your Honour had made a ruling on Thursday, December 7, concerning this very issue. I would like to quote from Your Honour's ruling, because I would have thought this would have made it perfectly clear to the hon. gentleman on the other side exactly what the rules

March 22, 1990
Point of Order
are. As reported at page 6583 of Hansard, Your Honour stated:
The first question asked by the parliamentary secretary was whether it was necessary for the government to designate a supply day before the opposition can give notice of a motion they want debated.
Exactly on point. In fact, I thought I heard the chief Whip on the government side raising this point.
You went on, sir:
The parliamentary secretary maintained that it was a necessary precondition. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands suggested that in this specific case it was not necessary and that, in any case, it had been done in anticipation of Friday being a votable supply day.
What could be more on point. Your Honour further stated:
According to our rules and practice, the purpose of notice is to give warning to the House of an item of business that might be raised for debate. The notice does not necessarily mean that the item will actually be debated or that it will be debated any time soon.
The Order Paper contains numerous items for which notice has been given but which have not yet been debated. The parliamentary secretary suggested that proceedings on supply days are different.
While I agree that certain aspects of supply have a character distinct from other proceedings, it seems to me that unless the rules on supply are explicit, the usual practices should be followed. This is the case with notice.
Your Honour further stated, and these words are most instructive:
It is competent for any opposition member to file a motion that might be debated on a supply day. Normally what happens is that members file supply day motions at the latest possible moment after a day has been designated by the government, but this does not preclude the right to give notice of the supply motion well in advance of a supply day. Indeed this has happened.
Your Honour cited a precedent in 1982 where a notice similar to this sat on the Order Paper for six weeks, through three other supply days, before it was finally called on a special date, on the last day of the period in March. If Your Honour will look at the date in 1982,1 am sure the parliamentary secretary will be able to get the government House leader to recall that perhaps it was one of their motions that sat on the Order Paper all this time. To hear the government Whip arguing now that somehow this motion is defective because it was given in advance is not accurate.
I suggest that the rest of Your Honour's ruling on December 7 was the epitome of light and reason. It applies to the situation with which we are faced now. I know the parliamentary secretary was here and he heard the ruling. It was an excellent ruling and I commend it to him for his earnest study before he tries another one of these stunts.
The other question is the 48 hours' notice rule. If I heard the Whip correctly, and I must say his arguments here were not precise, the suggestion seems to be that because he was not told before three o'clock yesterday afternoon he did not get 48 hours' notice. He has been around Parliament long enough to know-


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: They would not tell me at 6.20 p.m.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: They would not tell him until a quarter to seven. Whether it happened at five o'clock or whether it happened at a quarter to seven or whether it happened at three o'clock in my submission is irrelevant. The standard practice in this place is that 48 hours in the rules has been construed to mean the notice must be handed in at the Table before five o'clock, two days before the day it is to come up. If Friday is to be the day, it must be handed in on Wednesday by five o'clock. If it is received at the Thble by that time, as I understand it, that constitutes 48 hours' notice in this place.
Government bills are frequently handed in at the Table. We do not see them and we do not know anything about the notice concerning those bills or government motions until they are printed in the Projected Order of Business the next day and on the Notice Paper, and then they are debated the following day. That is our notice. In some ways it constitutes about 24 hours' notice, but that is the way the rules have been construed for years and years.
The government Whip is trying to suggest that if one of the parties on this side gives a notice, until the government gives its notice of designation that somehow the notice period does not start to run. I say that is just nonsense. It is nonsense because in looking at the Standing Order itself it clearly contemplates the possibility of 48 hours' notice being given, particularly for a Friday vote. I refer Your Honour to Standing Order 81(12) which states:
(12)(a) Forty-eight hours' written notice shall be given of motions to concur in interim supply, main estimates, supplementary or final estimates, to restore or reinstate any item of the estimates. IWenty-
March 22, 1990

four hours' written notice shall be given of an opposition motion on an allotted day or of a notice to oppose any item in the estimates, provided that for the supply period ending not later than June 30, forty-eight hours' written notice shall be given of a notice to oppose any item in the estimates;
(b) if an opposition motion pursuant to section (14) of this Standing Order is to be proposed on a Friday, forty-eight hours' written notice shall be given that the recorded division on the motion, if demanded, is not to be deferred;
I understand that that is the situation. The government says that the 48-hour period does not start to run somehow until it designates Friday. Based on Your Honour's ruling of December 7, that is not a reasonable interpretation of this Standing Order. It is completely twisting the words of the Standing Order.
The purpose of the Standing Order was to ensure that the government had 48 hours' notice that there was going to be a vote on a Friday, and I submit that the government got that notice in accordance with our practice. Having got the notice, now it is trying to squirm out of it by saying that its members are not around on Friday. They are off doing other duties. They are leaving early for the weekend. It is in a difficult situation and is trying to get out of it by a strained interpretation of these Standing Orders, which is at variance with Your Honour's ruling on December 7, at variance with the rules themselves, and at variance with the practice of the House established since these rules came into effect I believe in 1968.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course I will hear the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, but I want to indicate to hon. members that I understand the situation. Very shortly, I am going to reserve and consider the matter. I will report back to the House as quickly as possible, which means almost immediately, but I will hear the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. There are two points I wish to add.
It dawned on me while listening to the arguments of my colleague in the Liberal Party that if the New Democratic Party were forced to wait until the government gave formal notice of tomorrow being an opposition day, we would clearly not have the opportunity to give 48 hours' notice of the fact it would be votable.
Point of Order
Therefore we would lost our right to have a votable motion.
My second point is that according to the reform of this House it is up to the government to decide if the vote is a matter of confidence. Having looked at the wording of the motion, which in no way condemns the government of the day but seeks to move forward, they could choose either to vote for it or to say that if it passes it is not a matter of confidence. That is clearly within their purview. I would ask that Your Honour take that into consideration in your deliberations, and all members of the House look forward to hearing your response.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, nothing in my arguments- and I am sorry if they were misconstrued-would relate to the opposition losing its power to designate a day as votable. That is clearly in there and if the designation today is for tomorrow the motion can indeed be votable.
The question at issue is the degree of notice required for members as to when the vote will occur. If you put in another motion later today and you want it votable, clearly the Standing Orders would say that vote occurs on Monday because of the normal relationship of Friday.
I am suggesting that the reason for the rule that 48 hours' notice of when that vote is to occur must be given is so that all members can at least have that much time to rearrange their plans. In this specific case, the government did not have that required 48 hours' notice. I suggest that this is a general case you may wish to reserve judgment on for somewhat longer. We have both an immediate problem and a long-range problem. There must be two elements on notice: that a Friday will be a supply day and that has to be there 48 hours in advance, and that a vote will take place and that has to be there 48 hours in advance. When both elements are present, then you will actually have a confidence vote on the Friday. When one of those elements is missing, I suggest in the general case that the vote is automatically deferred. That was the intent of the McGrath commission and the response of this House to that was the certitude about when votes would take place, when indeed they were supply day type votes. That is the reason for the special rule.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for the manner in which this debate was conducted.

March 22, 1990
Government Orders
There are a number of issues here as hon. members know. If I were allowed to act unilaterally, I might very well immediately change the rules, but I am afraid I do not have that luxury nor do hon. members. I must go away and decide this on the basis of the rules as they are and as the practice has been. I will report back to the House as soon as possible.
I may be able to report back by one o'clock, but I will certainly be able to report back immediately after Question Period. I thank hon. members.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-65, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of State (Youth), Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, as hon. members are aware-

The Financial Administration Act requires that statutory borrowing authority be obtained from Parliament in order for the government to increase its outstanding debt.
Specifically, Part IV, section 36 of the act requires that "no money shall be borrowed or security issued by or on behalf of Her Majesty without the authority of Parliament". This refers to new money only rather than the refinancing of existing debt since section 46 of the act provides continuing authority to borrow funds to repay maturing debt.
While section 47 provides for temporary short-term borrowings, statutory borrowing authority must be obtained from Parliament to permit the government to implement a regular debt program to meet its financial requirements.
This bill should be viewed in the context of the government's continuing efforts to deal with Canada's deficit and debt problem.
The budget tabled by the Minister of Finance on February 20 reaffirms the government's commitment to reduce the deficit. Through a wide-ranging expenditure control plan and with no increase in taxes, the budget keeps the deficit on a downward path that will see it cut in half in four years.
The budget is part of the government's consistent, comprehensive plan to ensure that Canadians benefit from a strong and prosperous Canada.
That plan, first set out in 1984, has two main thrusts: to foster a dynamic, innovative and competitive private sector; and to put the government's fiscal house in order.
Our economic plan and the firm actions we have taken in the budget as part of that plan have brought us a clear prospect of lower inflation and a steadily declining deficit. They help ensure that the government's fiscal position in the 1990s can support the programs Canadians value most. By persevering, we will attain great control over our destiny and greater ability to devote our resources to investments in a rising standard of living and a better quality of life for all Canadians.
I would now like to outline for the House the terms of the borrowing authority bill for 1990-91. Paragraph 2(1) of the bill requests borrowing authority in the amount of $25.5 billion for fiscal 1990-91. This amount is equal to $22.5 billion of borrowing requirements, of which $21 billion is the government's estimated net financial requirements from the budget, $1.5 billion is the estimated exchange fund account earnings, and a $3 billion reserve to manage foreign exchange transactions.
As was the case last year, the request for borrowing authority to cover exchange fund earnings reflects the fact that although these earnings are reported in the public accounts as budgetary revenues, they give rise to additional Canadian dollarborrowing requirements. This is because they are retained in the exchange fund account and are not available to finance ongoing operations of the government.
The $3 billion reserve requested in the borrowing bill is the same as granted in the previous three years.
Paragraph 2(2) states that all unused borrowing authority granted by the Borrowing Authority Act, 1990-91, to the extent that the unused authority exceeds $3 billion, will be cancelled on March 31, 1991. Thus, this
March 22, 1990

paragraph preserves the government's non-lapsing reserve into the next year to accommodate the possibility that new statutory borrowing authority is not provided before the 1991-92 fiscal year begins.
Paragraph 3 ensures that the $3 billion reserve granted last fiscal year by the Borrowing Authority Act, 1989-90 will be cancelled on March 31, 1990 or on the date the new bill comes into force, whichever is later. Thus, this paragraph prevents non-lapsing reserves granted for earlier years from accumulating but ensures that cancellation will take place at a time that is not disruptive.
Paragraph 4 ensures that if the new bill passes after March 31, 1990 and part of the $3 billion reserve granted for 1989-90 has been used, this does not increase the total amount of borrowing authority available for 1990-91.
For the information of hon. members, I would like to briefly review the government's debt operations to the end of February 1989-90.
So far the domestic debt program has increased the unmatured domestic debt outstanding by approximately $19.6 billion. At the same time the outstanding debt in foreign currencies has been reduced by $2.9 billion. The combined effect has been an increase in the outstanding unmatured debt to around $294 billion.
Of the total net debt issued so far in 1989-1990, $10 billion was in the form of marketable bonds. As well, the government increased the emphasis on selling bonds by auction, which it has found to be a cost effective form of issuing debt. Auctions now account for about 65 per cent of all marketable bonds issued, up from about 60 per cent in 1988-89.
Treasury bills were used to raise $15.5 billion of new funds to the end of February 1989-90.
This fall the 1989 Canada Savings Bond campaign with a coupon of 10.5 per cent generated total sales of $9.3 billion. The net amount raised in the campaign, after taking account of CSBs which matured in 1989 and other maturities which were redeemed during the campaign, was $3.1 billion.
In closing, I would like to remind hon. members that they have all the necessary information before them to deal with this bill. The bill is related to the borrowing
Government Orders
requirements set out in the budget and the Estimates which have been tabled in the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I hope that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Milliken) and other members of the opposition will help expedite the passage of this bill through the House.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Madam Speaker, I listened to the minister with great care. As he mentioned, every item of expenditure of the Government of Canada falls under the public accounts of this country. I also noticed that he made some more projections, as the finance minister often has a habit of doing. We will talk about that later.
As he said, Bill C-65 would give the government the authority to borrow up to $25.5 billion during the coming fiscal year to cover its budgetary deficit. Projected financial requirements look as if they are about $21 billion.
In its role as the supreme authority in Canada-that is this government-in matters relating to the raising and dispersing of funds on behalf of the Crown, Parliament is regularly requested to grant authority to the Minister of Finance to raise money under the Financial Administration Act by way of loan or by the issue and sale of securities of Canada in the words of each bill forming such a request.
Having stated that, it is very important to put on the record today in this borrowing bill debate just what kind of financial management this government has had since taking office. We know that at the end of March 1984 the national debt of this country stood at $160 billion. Today, after five years plus with this government, the national debt of this country stands at $351 billion. This is financial management from a government that stated it was going to cut the deficit and get the finances of this country under control. The fact is that they have skyrocketed every year that this government has been in office.
Let us take a look at this. I do not like to say things like that without being able to back them up.
This government borrowed $7.3 billion during the period 1984-85 to the end of the fiscal year of March 1985. Let us go to 1985-86 when this government borrowed $12 billion. If we go back to 1984 and 1985, the

March 22, 1990
Government Orders
government borrowed $24.55 billion. Some of that money belonged to the previous administration and some was overlapping into the next administration. In 1985-86 this government borrowed another $18.2 billion.
I want to remind you, Madam Speaker, that this comes from a government that said it was going to cut the deficit of this country and get the finances under control. The Minister of Finance said in August 1984 that he was not going to raise taxes to do this. He was simply going to cut government programs. That shows how much he understood about government then and he obviously has not learned a great deal since.
In 1986-87 this government borrowed $22.6 billion. Then again in 1986-87 it borrowed $3.6 billion and in addition to that in 1987-88 it borrowed $24.3 billion. In 1988-89 it borrowed $25.3 billion. In 1989-90 it borrowed $750 million. Today the government is asking for another $25.5 billion. All this totals approximately $190 billion. This from a government that was going to show a great example of financial management. That is what the government said to Canadians in 1984. The Minister of Finance is still in dream-land. He has still not learned what is going on around him, because he still says he is going to do it. I will have a little more to say about those figures later on.
The government is passing its debt. The government has learned one thing, and that is how to pass its debt. It has learned how to pass its responsibilities for government. It has learned how to pass the buck to provincial and municipal governments. That is the one thing it has learned.
In 1982 the Minister of Finance thought that the federal government should not reduce its deficit on the backs of the provinces. That was in 1982, when he was sitting over here in the opposition. He said this, and I quote: "Let us not make hospitals, universities and colleges a battleground between the federal government and the provincial governments". He also said that consultations were imperative before there were any budget cuts. We know what has happened to consultation under this government.
In August 1989 the Prime Minister said-and this is rather ironic because this was a statement of the Prime Minister of Canada-and I quote:
This government will carry its fair share of the burden to ensure that all young Canadians receive a first-class education as they confront a world-class challenge.
Instead the Prime Minister has confronted young people of this country with a first-class challenge, because we all know that in the recent budget the Minister of Finance has cut drastically funds to the provinces for post-secondary education and medicare.
The cuts or the freezing of federal spending in transfer payments or Established Programs Financing indicate that it is only a matter of time before Ottawa will no longer pay a single cent for medicare or higher education in any of the provinces. That is what we have under this government. That, Madam Speaker, is why this government must be changed. This would result in Ottawa losing its ability to enforce minimum standards of accessibility and equity in two of Canada's most vital social policy areas, namely, education and medicare.
This government is famous for passing costs back to the provinces, and in effect putting the onus right down to the individual taxpayers who will end up with the expense. Provincial taxes will increase to make up for the cuts in the transfer payments to the provinces. I know you will not believe this, Madam Speaker, because you are a lady with a very fine and kind heart, but the cuts in transfer payments to the provinces equal $576 per taxpayer over the next five years.
The Unemployment Insurance Commission was originally transferred to the federal government in order to ease the financial burdens of the provinces and the municipalities, many of which went broke during the Depression years of the early thirties. The Rowell-Sirois commission report that followed stated that its financial proposals were designed to enable every province of Canada to rely on having sufficient revenue at its command to carry out the functions entrusted to it.
When they transferred the burden of the unemployed from the provincial and the municipal governments over to the federal Government of Canada they made the
March 22, 1990

stipulation that "the assumption of responsibility by the Dominion for the relief of aid of unemployed employables would entail complete financial responsibility".
That is the recommendation that was made and accepted by the Mackenzie King government in August when Royal Assent was given to the bill amending the Constitution to transfer the unemployment insurance programs to the federal government. That was the commitment that was made by the then Liberal government and today we have a Tory government here in Ottawa that is reneging on the entire deal and reneging on the very Constitution of this country. It is transferring all those expenditures for the UIC fund over to the individuals and private enterprise. The Tories are the great promoters of private enterprise.
Let us talk about broken promises. I do not want to spend too much time on that because I would be here all day. The Prime Minister is on record as saying he would not pay off the deficit by attacking social programs. The Prime Minister and the former Minister of National Health and Welfare promised to maintain over-all social spending by not using social program funds to reduce the deficit, and promised they would maintain the universality of programs for seniors and families. Such promises are now a thing of the past. Universality, as a key principle of government, is dead.
The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister called the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, the leader of the Liberal party, a liar during the last election campaign for saying that Canada's social and regional development programs would be eroded after the election. Since the election the government has done the following: clawed back seniors old age pensions and family allowances, cut VIA Rail which is a regional development tool, withdrawn from the unemployment insurance program and cut benefits, and scrapped its promised child care program. Do you remember how carefully it fine tuned that child care program that it was going to bring forward in this Parliament? It fine tuned it until the election was over and then dropped it like a hot potato. The government cut transfer payments to the provinces for health care and post-secondary education by $7,464 billion over the next five years.
We all know that famous quote of the Prime Minister: "Pensions are a sacred trust never to be tampered with". Since then he has attempted to deindex old age pensions
Government Orders
and he is now trying to claw back senior citizens' pensions.
I want this quote to be very carefully attributed: "We would cut spending. We would not raise taxes. Thx levels in Canada are already too high". Now, who do you suppose said that? That was stated by the Minister of Finance on March 6, 1984. What a transition. Since 1984 taxes have been increased 31 times. That is not counting the pending GST.
Federal tax revenues have increased by $48 billion since 1984. But the Minister of Finance said he was not going to raise taxes. He was going to cut the deficit by cutting government programs. It was simple back then in 1984. After all these measures the deficit is still out of control. You know that song, where has all the money gone?
I think this is a fine tribute to the judgment of the present Minister of Finance. On May 23, 1985, he stated the following: "Our actions will directly reduce the annual deficit at the end of the decade by more than $20 billion, down to $18 billion". We are now at the end of the decade and his own finance department has informed us that the deficit stands at $30.5 billion. Not bad for the Minister of Finance. He only missed his target by $12.5 billion.
He went on to say: "Our challenge in 1984 was to restore fiscal stability and rebuild credibility in the management of government finances. The only way to do that was to set out a medium term fiscal plan with sustained deficit reduction and then hold to that plan". This is exactly what he did. I suppose Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher could easily deliver the same statement. But the fact is he has held to this great plan. What are the results? His deficit has grown larger in the last three years alone.
Let me cite the following: "It took over one hundred years; from Sir John A. Macdonald to Lester B. Pearson, to accumulate a federal debt of $18 billion," including two world wars that had to be paid for. "By next April that debt will have reached $180 billion. Despite a decade of rhetoric about fiscal responsibility, this government now borrows over $20 billion a year just to meet its interest payments".
That is what the Prime Minister said on March 22, 1984. He said it took over one hundred years, from Sir John A. Macdonald to Lester B. Pearson, to accumulate a federal debt of $18 billion. He has outdone all of them. In the last five years he can boast that he has raised the

Speaker's Ruling
national debt of Canada by $190 billion. He deserves an Oscar award, Madam Speaker.
This is the kind of rhetoric we have been listening to in the House of Commons every day. When our present leader of the Liberal party delivered a speech in this House on March 6, he really focused on one of the key issues.
He said: "We should focus more and more of our attention and resources on long-term investment in people, education, literacy and the upgrading of skills". That means the federal government would maintain its credibility with the provinces, its respectability with the people of Canada and invest in those people by putting money into post-secondary education and training programs. The budget we have just had does exactly the opposite.
I will quote one more statement then move to another very important issue that I think will deal very heavily with the public accounts of this country in the next decade. This quote comes from none other than the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in its 1990 pre-budget submission. The Chamber of Commerce is a very good friend of the government front benches. The Chamber of Commerce said at that time:
The staggering federal debt figures prove that the government, despite protestations to the contrary, has failed miserably to address the problem. Virtually every measure it considered unacceptable in 1984 has been surpassed.
The government has even surpassed its own worst predictions. Our poor Minister for International Trade is under great pressure these days. He still has not done anything about the softwood lumber 15 per cent export tax, or small business and industry across this country, to say nothing of the labour in one-industry towns we have in this country.
The Minister for International Trade said: "There will be no changes to the unemployment insurance program". He had been assured of that by the Prime Minister of Canada. Today, those changes are floating back and forth between the Senate and the House of Commons. The bill is somewhere up in the air and it still has to be dealt with. The only way it is going to be dealt with is through a possible conference between the government and the Senate. It is up to the Senate to protect the regions of this country and to protect the
people whom this government sees as dispensable because it does not worry about the social programs of this country.
We have all received letters from Canadians about the intolerable statistics in the Public Accounts of Canada. We know how discouraged Canadians are about the actions of the government.
During the election campaign, the leader of the Liberal party told Canadians that the finances of this country were in a far greater mess than the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance were letting on.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: I very much hesitate to interrupt the hon. member. I know he will co-operate with the Chair. I know that he will have no difficulty enlarging on the point he just made in subsequent debate. The interruption, of course, will not take any time from the hon. member.
We heard extensive argument this morning on some difficult matters. I felt that in the interest of members on both sides of the House, with respect to what their obligations might have to be tomorrow in this Chamber, I would make a ruling now which will be very short. I will follow it up as soon as I can, in the next day or so, with a very detailed ruling which may assist hon. members on both sides of the House.
My ruling then is this: Friday and Monday must be allotted days. The New Democratic Party has fulfilled the requirements of the Standing Orders to have a vote tomorrow on the motion on notice. As I say, I will return to the House with detailed reasons for this decision so that the reasons will be of assistance to all hon. members.
Having said that, in the interests of the public who is watching, this ruling does not, of course, detract in any way from the capacity of hon. members on both sides of the House to work out some arrangement between themselves which may be satisfactory with respect to tomorrow.
On the narrow procedural point which I have had to decide, and it is a very important one and not particularly easy, that is the decision. Again, perhaps hon. members
March 22, 1990

knowing this decision will be able to make adjustments for tomorrow, but that is not in my hands.


BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1990-91 MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-65, an act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate with the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing- Pembroke.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Madam Speaker, I just want to point out for those who were watching the Speaker's ruling that it shows the government manages the House of Commons about as effectively as it manages the nation. It is into more serious trouble today. It cannot even get its act straight here.
When I sat down, I had been talking about the leader of the Liberal party who, during the election campaign, told the Canadian public that the finances of Canada were in far worse shape than the Prime Minister of Canada and the Minister of Finance were actually telling them. They called him a liar over that, over what he said about regional programs and other things.
After the election campaign was over, the government spent $3 million to tell the Canadian public the same thing that the leader of the Liberal party told them during the election campaign for free. What kind of financial management is that? We have to focus on the deficit but the government is so intent on winning elections at any cost that it does not care what happens. It will change things to its own way after it is all over.
The House will recall the Press Gallery article about the little room for the Prime Minister's make-up closet that had to be fixed up across the street. It was very important for his image.
There was the trip to Costa Rica. Two limousines were flown down for the protection of the Prime Minister. The Secretary of State for External Affairs was very provoked with me when I asked questions in the House about it because he thought I was interfering with the safety of the Prime Minister. I was not. Over here, we are very concerned with the safety of the Prime Minister.
Government Orders
We thought that if the government was going to send down two limousines for him to ride around in, the least it could do was to put gasoline in them. What were they going do? Park them out in the parking lot and send him out there to hide until some crisis was over? These are just some of the blunders which turn the Canadian people off.
The National Gallery has committed itself to spend $1.8 million for an 18-foot canvas of red and blue stripes by an American artist. This equals roughly what the government will save by cancelling the funding of women's and natives' groups.
Recently, on International Women's Day, we saw the glossy poster that went across the country. The cost of producing that would have kept one women's centre open for a year.
These are just some examples. I know the Canadian public is sick and tired of the government. It has no credibility left in its finances. They are beginning to wonder whether there is in fact any planning at all in the government.
We all know here that tourism in the 1990s and up to the year 2000 is going to be the biggest industry, not only in Canada but in the world. With eastern Europe opening up the way it is, it will be even greater than the predictions of the last five years.
What great plans is the government making to promote the country and get it ready for that great onslaught of tourists by the year 2000? People should be coming to Canada from all over the world because they have heard so much about Canada.
We are great friends of many countries around this world and we have done many things for them. Our Canadian Forces who have served around the world have been tremendous images of the Canadian personality. They know us through them as well.
We are really laying the groundwork for Tourism 2000 in this country which will mean a lot of earning for many Canadians. The government is planning to bring in the GST for one thing, and the tourist organizations not only in Canada but outside Canada are warning the government about what a disastrous effect this is going to have on tourism in Canada during the nineties and indeed on into the 2000s.

March 22, 1990
Government Orders
The government cut VIA Rail. If you are going to take visitors across Canada and show them the country and indeed if you are going to show Canadians our country the best thing to do is not cut VIA Rail, break the line, but have a national rail service in this country so people might see something. They might get from one place to another in a way that would appeal to them.
There is another way that this government is really helping to lay the groundwork for the tourist industry of the coming decade. Tourism Canada is one of the greatest little sections of government that we have. It is not very well known to the Canadian public because they do not get the attention they deserve.
Tourism Canada is a group of people working to promote tourism for Canada. Because of their efforts five years ago they had 400 people on staff. With the onslaught coming for tourism and because of the attitude of this government, two years ago Tourism Canada, in preparation for the next decade in this country, was cut down to 150 personnel. In 1990 the government cut them back to 110. They just recently let 17 people go.
In 1991, just to continue this very constructive program to destroy tourism in this country, a further reduction by 8 per cent will take place. In 1992 the government is going to further reduce them by 5 per cent. That is what we are doing to promote one of the greatest developing industries for this country.
While the finances of this country are being mismanaged today by this government, we are hearing all these statements about the fantastic financial management skills of the government and the fantastic results it is achieving. Yet it is hanging up there at $30.5 billion deficit.
I want to reinforce what I said a while ago about the extent of the growth of tourism in the world and in Canada. Whenever we travel abroad or even in Canada, even in business, it is tourism because we do a certain amount of visiting while we are there. We have become part of the 1,500 million people who travel away from their place of residence every year. That number equals almost one-third of the world's population.
We have also contributed to the world-wide spending on tourism which, in 1988, was over $2,000 billion U.S. dollars or $2 trillion, as North Americans would say, if
we include spending on transport. If that sounds like a lot of money, it is. It comes to 12 per cent of the world Gross National Product and more than the GNP of any country but the United States. Tourism has become the world's largest industry. As a source of foreign earnings it accounts for 25 per cent to 30 per cent of the world trade in services. That is a fantastic statistic.
That is what we should be planning for today, yet this government in its foresight is cutting Tourism Canada. As of the end of this year it will be down to less than 25 per cent of the personnel of what it was five years ago. Is that management? Is that saving?
People who come to Canada want to do many things. We have tremendous outdoors in this country for people to enjoy. One of the services to many small communities and tourist areas across this country comes from small craft harbours, a small section of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
This government has been neglecting small craft harbours ever since it took office. Facilities that were good are deteriorating because they are not being maintained. Some are still non-existent because there is no money to build anything, which means that development is not taking place to pave the way for Tourism 2000. Adding costs of maintenance to facilities just simply wastes money because it costs more in the long run.
As the hon. member for Algoma said when he spoke in this House a few days ago on behalf of his region of Canada, northern Ontario, very few Canadians realize that in Ontario alone, the Ontario and federal governments collect some $300 million annually from fishing tackle, sale of boats, sale of oars, sale of motors, sale of gasoline and other marine supplies that relate to small craft harbours, just to that industry alone.
What do they put back into it? They put $3 million, 1 per cent, back in as an investment for this country. The remainder of that revenue probably helped to buy that $1.8 million article over at the museum. It probably helped to fix the Prime Minister's make-up room behind the National Press Gallery. All these things are very important. It is more important for the Prime Minister to have a make-up room around Parliament Hill and across
March 22, 1990

Wellington Street than it is to build another harbour facility to promote tourism in this country.
The government has all its priorities wrong. Talking about developing tourism and small business, this government has talked incessantly about high interest rates and has always talked about the previous government. It blames everything on the previous government, but it will run out of those stories one of these days. It is beginning to sound like a worn record.
Just to put the record straight once again, I want to state very clearly that when this government took power in September 1984, interest rates in this country stood at exactly 13 per cent. Today, they stand at 14.25 per cent, the largest real interest rate that we have had in this country for years.
The development and environmental protection of tourist sites is very important. Environment itself is another area where we wall have to prepare for Tourism 2000. We will have to protect the natural sites so they are not damaged by tourism.
The environment and the protection of our tourist sites is going to be very important. Environment is going to be a big issue in the 1990s. We hope it is. We do not know what this government is going to do, but we hear all kinds of rumours.
I see my hon. friend over here who has done a lot of work on the environment. He has held conferences and has contributed greatly. I am sure that if the government would only ask him what to do, he could give some very good advice.
The government must pay more attention to the environmental issues of this country. It must pay more attention to tourism and less attention to the silly things that it considers to be important. It must manage the finances of this country in such a way that Canadians are going to have something to look up to, instead of levying 31 tax increases and another massive tax increase pending with the GST as of January 1 of next year, if this goes on-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: We will have to interrupt the hon. member. He may want to conclude his remarks after Question Period.

It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the presence in our country of Reverend Lazio Tokes. Mr. Tokes, an ethnic Hungarian Romanian clergyman, is credited with having sparked the downfall of the Ceau-sescu regime in Romania last December by his defiant stand against ruthless persecution.
We Canadians have followed the events in Romania and have been hopeful that the dramatic changes would have brought about new freedom, hope for justice and peace to the region. The hope persists, but unfortunately we have seen increased persecution of the Hungarian minority in Romania. It is with great sadness and concern that yesterday we watched the clashes between some Romanians and the Hungarian minority, leaving at least six dead and about 300 injured. Such violence threatens the growth of democracy.
I am concerned that while Romania has finally achieved freedom from an inhumane dictator and has set up a provisional government, a truly free and democratic society cannot be achieved without support for human rights. The international community must help to protect the rights of the Hungarians and all citizens in Romania, and I call upon the Canadian government and parliamentarians to use their influence in all ways.
Official Canadian election observers have been requested by both the Romanian and Hungarian governments for the May elections in Romania. I further call on our government to consider Canadian food aid to Romania. Our wish and goal is to see Romania accept a clear and consistent standard of human rights, protection of minority rights, and democracy. Only then will a truly free and just society be achieved.

March 22, 1990
[Translation\


GLOBE 90 CONFERENCE
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the topics being discussed and major initiatives being taken by the Canadian Council of Environment Ministers meeting this week in Vancouver during the Globe 90 conference.
A national protocol on packaging aimed at a volume reduction of 50 per cent by the year 2000 is one measure that should be welcome to all Canadians.
Subjects such as global warming, intergovernmental co-operation on the environment, a strategy for regulating pulp and paper mills, a national program for cleaning up contaminated areas, management of used tire stockpiles, PCBs and environmental assessments are an indication that Canada is emerging as a real leader in environmental matters, for which all the credit goes to the federal environmental minister and his provincial counterparts.


An hon. member:: Hear, hear!


RACIAL EQUALITY
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have a world-wide reputation of being a tolerant and understanding people. Yet that reputation is being challenged by a social problem in Canada today. Racism has the potential to cast a dark shadow upon that reputation. We can no longer rest in our easy chairs and watch television reports about racism, confident that it occurs only in far off lands. It has hit much closer to home and has done so for longer than we care to admit.
Yesterday marked the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. I would encourage the people of Canada not to observe just one day, but to continue to work all year to ensure that there are no racial barriers to equality in Canada.


RED CROSS MONTH
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, the month of March has been designated as Red Cross Month in Prince Edward Island and across the country. The Red Cross is an organization which has aided communities in water safety, blood donor clinics and disaster assistance.
Prince Edward Island has greatly benefitted from the Red Cross. We can boast of committed individuals like Dr. Iphigenie Arsenault who has devoted over 63 years of service the Red Cross. In 1945, Dr. Evelyn Cudmore began the Water Safety Instruction Program in Prince Edward Island, representing the first program of its kind to take place in Canada outside Toronto. Arthur Love, with the assistance of Dr. Cudmore, began the Small Craft Safety Program in 1971. It was a pilot project which is now a national activity.
I know that all sides of the House join with me in recognizing the Red Cross and commending this organization on the contribution it makes to our communities.


FORESTRY
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, it took a United Nations official to tell Canadians what the government is afraid to say-that Canada is contributing to global warming because of the rapid rate at which we are cutting down our forests.
Gro Brundtland and others have warned that climate change is the biggest single threat facing humanity today. This government endorsed the Brundtland report and likes to talk about sustainable development. Absence of responsible forest management is not sustainable development.
While this government brags about its achievements on the environment and accepts prizes from international organizations with questionable allegiances, we are losing our forests at a rate of 7.5 million acres a year.
The federal government must bring forward a comprehensive strategy on global warming which will include a commitment to careful management of our forests. Such a strategy should include a law banning clear-cutting in
March 22, 1990

favour of more careful techniques, a national forest inventory and preservation of old growth forests.
The facts are clear. The time is now for the government to listen to Canadians and move swiftly toward a sustainable future.


MR. JAMES NICHOLAS
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland -St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues in this House to join me in acclaiming Mr. James Nicholas of Welland, Ontario, who has brought honour to Canada by being elected as the International Secretary of the World Council for Global Co-operation. He was the principal founder of this organization that was established in Toronto in November, 1988.
Some of the world's greatest minds have lent their support to Mr. Nicholas. Eleven Nobel prize winners from ten countries now serve as directors and patrons of the World Council.
The World Council is a follow-up to An Appeal For Peace which was written by Mr. James Nicholas and addressed to the youth of the developed world in 1984. The appeal was endorsed by 66 Nobel Laureates from 20 countries. Mr. Nicholson presented the appeal to Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Inspired by his words of commendation, the World Council was formally established. Among those present at the founding convention were members of the diplomatic corps from 17 different countries. They represented more than half of humanity.
The Prime Minister of Canada was represented by Senator Richard Doyle. To date 17 international organizations from 15 countries have affiliated themselves with the World Council.
Internationally, Mr. Nicholas' efforts have been successful because his labours have been interpreted as an important Canadian initiative for peace.


CHALLENGE 90
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State (Youth) and member for Vercheres just announced that students will be able to take out interest-free loans of up to $3,000 to set up a business this summer.
This program is part of a federal initiative called "Challenge 90", sponsored jointly by the Federal Business Development Bank.
Students who are interested can obtain an application form and a copy of the guide at Canada Employment Centres, Canada Employment Centres for Students, the Federal Business Development Bank, the National Bank of Canada, in Quebec, and the Royal Bank.
Mr. Speaker, this is a popular program in this country. The number of loans and the amounts involved have increased annually since the program was set up in 1985 by Canada's Conservative members of Parliament.


GLOBE 90 CONFERENCE
Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Globe 90 environmental trade conference being held this week in Vancouver.
This is the first time that a conference of this nature has been held. Over 600 exhibitors, leading scientists and parliamentarians are attending this conference which demonstrates the commitment that both the Canadian government and the private sector have towards the protection of the environment.
The elimination of acid rain, stricter pollution controls, cleaning up toxic wastes, tighter auto emission controls, soil conservation, recycling, as well as programs for sustaining agricultural development clearly demonstrate this government's continuing commitment to preserving this great country for generations of Canadians to come.

March 22, 1990
Initiatives such as these by the government and private industry are putting Canada at the forefront of the environmental protection stage. Globe 90 will be of benefit to all Canadians.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mr. Marcel R. TYemblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, several years ago, Canadians worried about how Quebecers would vote in the referendum, and rightly so. They realized at the time that without Quebec, Canada would be much weaker. Those who were in government at the time, the Trudeaus, Chretiens and Lalondes, committed themselves, put their seats on the line, and got together with various leading figures to save this country, as they said. Today, somehow, they don't sound the same.
It is now March 22, 1990, and although it doesn't seem that long ago, I have the distinct impression that the situation has changed dramatically.
Would hon. members and the people of Canada please explain what is going on? It looks like a referendum is now being held in Canada, against Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, where is this marvelous country we were going to save? I would urge all Canadians to turn on their television sets this evening at 8:30 and listen to and record the message of the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, the architect of the Meech Lake Accord.


TIMMINS AIRPORT
Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, in 1988 a much needed expansion project for the Timmins airport was announced by the federal government. The former Transport Minister justified the cost of the expansion because of the size of the city and the amount of airport traffic.
Tenders were opened in April of 1989, but no action has been taken yet. Recently I received a copy of a study commissioned by Transport Canada on the economic impact the Timmins airport has on the local economy. I hope the new Minister of Transport will take the time to read the study and consider the number of jobs created
by the Timmins airport, not only in Timmins but also in other regions of Ontario.
The study underlines the pressing need for this expansion to go ahead. It is imperative that this project get approval.


MICMAC NEWS
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, it has been my pleasure today to meet with native leaders from Nova Scotia, the editor and the publisher of the Micmac News, and Mr. Donald Marshall, who are in town to meet with the Secretary of State to try to convince the Secretary of State to re-establish funding for the Micmac News and other publications across this country.
The Micmac News has been published for over 20 years. It has a circulation of over 4,800. It has done a tremendous amount of good and has been a source of communication and pride to the Micmac community in Atlantic Canada. It is the only major native newspaper in Atlantic Canada.
This government decided that it wanted to silence the Micmac people. This is just part of the plot of this government that includes doing away with protesters. Protesters are even afraid to hold up signs now in case the National Gallery wants to buy them.
It has to change. We need human rights in this country. This government has to re-establish funding for the Micmac News.


NATIVE COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, over the last couple of years Canadians have repeatedly been shocked to learn that the justice system has failed the aboriginal peoples. I, too, have had the opportunity to meet Donald Marshall. It is difficult, as a proud Canadian, to look at a man who spent that many years in jail without fault.
How can the government now take away the voice of the aboriginal peoples, shut down our newspapers and take our money for communications? That is the unkindest cut. That is something that should not be tolerated in Canada.
March 22, 1990

I say, on behalf of our native communications people, that we must not continue to target the aboriginal peoples and further victimize them. We do not need any more J. J. Harpers and we do not need any more Donald Marshalls as victims for Canada.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, tonight the Prime Minister will go on national television to talk to Canadians about the Meech Lake Accord. Like most Canadians, I am anxious to hear what the Prime Minister has to say.
In recent weeks the fate of the Meech Lake Accord has been uncertain. Some have insisted it is doomed. I prefer a more optimistic view of our search for a Constitution that brings Canada together.
As a western Canadian I support the Meech Lake Accord and its commitment to the process of Senate reform. The conditions set out in the accord stipulate that the federal and provincial governments must address the issue of Senate reform. Without a Meech Lake Accord, that commitment is lost.
I support the efforts of the Prime Minister and the premiers to end the current impasse, and hope that all Canadians will be encouraged by the Prime Minister's remarks tonight.


CORPORATE TAXATION
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, it is time once again to choose the corporate welfare bum of the week.
The three nominees which have benefitted from the generous tax breaks provided by Liberal and Conservative governments are Maritime Life, Ocelot Industries and Tridel. Not one of these worthy nominees paid a penny of federal income tax in 1988. Maritime Life had profits of $34 million; Ocelot Industries had a net income of $432 million and Tridel netted $72 million. The three combined had profits of over $500 million but not a single sou in federal income taxes were paid. The GST will not touch these major corporations.
Now for the winner. The envelope please.
Oral Questions
The winner is Tridel Corporation. This major real estate developer did not pay income taxes but it did find it in its heart to contribute $29,000 to the Conservative party and $25,000 to the Liberal party as political contributions in 1988.
For remaining loyal to the old adage: "Never bite the hand that feeds you", Tridel is the corporate welfare bum of the week.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Jean-Robert Gauthier: My
question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Canadians are all concerned about the deadlock involving the 1987 constitutional amendments and our uncertain constitutional future. We know that this evening, the Prime Minister will be heard on our national televison network.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether in his speech this evening, the Prime Minister of Canada will announce any new initiatives to break this constitutional deadlock.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that the initiative that was taken by Premier McKenna of New Brunswick has been a very positive development in this whole exercise.
It is fair to say that generally there has been a positive response because it really, in effect, provides an opportunity for the passage of Meech Lake without taking anything away while, at the same time, providing an opportunity for additions to be made.
With that in mind, and the fact that the premier has indicated that he in no way felt that this was a complete solution to the impasse, it does provide the opportunity for the other dissenting premiers to look at the proposal in a very serious vein and, hopefully, to examine it in such a way that it can add to the constructive position that has been put forth and result, hopefully, in a

March 22, 1990
Oral Questions
ratification of the accord together with any refinements that may be achieved through a parallel structure.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians welcome proposals to solve the ongoing constitutional impasse.
The first obligation, in our view, of the Prime Minister is to share with the House of Commons any new initiative he may take to assist in solving this crisis.
How does the government intend to live up to the longstanding British parliamentary system tradition of coming to the House of Commons and presenting to the elected members of the House the proposals that are to be put to solve such an important constitutional crisis?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon. member is suggesting that the Prime Minister should not engage in a discussion of this importance with the people of Canada.
I think that the precedent for a Prime Minister speaking to Canadians at large has been well established by previous Prime Ministers. I know a previous Prime Minister spoke on television to the Canadian people on many occasions of national importance. The Prime Minister, in no way, has evaded the House of Commons on this very important issue and he has no intention of evading the House of Commons on this issue today.
Clearly, if there any initiatives that will be taken, they will be brought before the House of Commons and members of the House of Commons will have a full opportunity to respond and debate the issue as we think it should be.
It is fair to say that the Prime Minister has been here in the House of Commons debating the Meech Lake issue and responding to questions whenever the opposition wanted to ask questions about it. I am sure that what will take place today will add to the constructive progress that has been initiated. I am sure there will be lots of
opportunity for debating this very important issue in the days to come in the House of Commons.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to remind the Deputy Prime Minister that we live in a parliamentary democracy, not a presidential system. We would appreciate it very much if some mechanism were put in place for members of Parliament to be consulted on this question.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister told us he would respond to the McKenna proposal on televison. He has had time to analyse the proposal made by the Premier of New Brunswick and any proposals made by other provincial Premiers. Could the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House whether the Prime Minister intends to call a meeting of provincial Premiers, to invite them to sit around the table and discuss this issue, with a view to finding a solution to our constitutional dilemma?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I really regret that the hon. member, for whom I have a lot of respect, would want to engage in a partisan debate about whether or not the Prime Minister should speak on national television.
A former Prime Minister of this country, as I recall, spoke on national television on probably six or seven occasions. He spoke on the 6 and 5 proposal, on the constitutional proposal and the War Measures Act.
I find it rather strange for the hon. member to suggest that the Prime Minister should not take the opportunity to communicate directly with Canadians. He has discussed this issue, defended it and debated it on the floor of the House of Commons on numerous occasions.
As to what he will do, I am sure the hon. member will be delighted that what he probably intends to do tonight is advance the progress based upon the initiative of Mr. McKenna. Hopefully that can help us move toward unlocking the log-jam, at which time we will also call upon the support and co-operation of all hon. members, including the hon. member who posed the question.
March 22, 1990


BROADCASTING ACT
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked why building national unity for this diverse, bilingual, multicultural, multiracial country was not a worthy goal. In particular, I asked why national unity is now to be excluded from the new Broadcasting Act.
In response, the government said that "national unity mandates for broadcasters exist only in totalitarian regimes like South Africa and are not appropriate for democracies like Canada."
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. As national unity has been part of the CBC mandate since 1968, is it this government's view that we have not had democracy in the last 22 years, and in particular in the last six years of the Tory government? Is that what the government means by removing the national unity clause?


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I reminded the hon. member yesterday that she had voted for this particular change. The change was made in the original bill, Bill C-136, which was before this House in 1988. I have not had the opportunity to check the voting record, but I believe the hon. member supported the change at that time.
There has been a tremendous amount of criticism of the presence of such a clause in the bill. Among those who have criticized it have been many civil libertarians across this country who regard it as appropriate to a regime that controls its media. We have an arm's length relationship with the publicly owned broadcasting corporation and that will be maintained.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, freedom of expression has never been interfered with. It is guaranteed under the Charter of Rights of this country. I did call for change. Change has taken place in this country. When there is a mood change in the country I think the role of the government is to respond to that mood change.
Will the government tell Canadians why, in its new broadcasting bill, it establishes two separate standing committees at the CBC, one on English language broadcasting and the other on French language broadcasting, creating two Canadas within the CBC? Why is the government undermining a vision of a united Canada?
Oral Questions
What is wrong with Canada? Why can't government help it grow?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the proposal to have standing committees of the CBC board to deal with the problems of French and English broadcasting is a very constructive move toward national unity.
I would draw to the hon. member's attention the wonderful program that appeared just a few nights ago. There was a combined broadcast of Le Point and The Journal on which national unity issues were discussed.
It is to try to find the devices to bridge the two solitudes in this country that the proposal to establish the two standing committees of the one board of the CBC under CBC by-laws is in the legislation.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture knows that there have been serious design flaws in the Canadian Crop Drought Assistance Program, flaws which resulted in prairie producers getting bills of $1,200 to $2,000 and demands for immediate payment. The minister knows that the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds recently signed a letter to producers in Saskatchewan explaining that they have no course but to pay up and thank the government for the good job that it has been doing.
How can the Minister of Agriculture justify sending bills to prairie producers when what they really need is assistance? Will he immediately withdraw this demand for payment and ask his government to properly address the immediate financial concerns of prairie producers?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has any specific cases in mind I would be pleased to look into them.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Legislature in Saskatchewan unanimously supported an emergency resolution calling on this government to provide up to $900 million for cash starved Saskatchewan producers.
Is the Minister of Agriculture prepared today to stand in this House and accept this cry for help that he has now received from every single elected MLA in the province of Saskatchewan? When will the minister accept the fact that there is a serious agricultural crisis on the prairies?

March 22, 1990
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the House a couple of days ago and again last week, the deputy ministers of agriculture have been meeting this week and working on the design of a program that hopefully would go some distance in meeting some of the problems of the grain and oilseeds sector and agriculture in general, particularly with respect to the province of Saskatchewan.
That work is ongoing in close co-operation with the provinces and we hope that in the near future we will be able to make some positive announcements.


POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance but in his absence I will direct it to the Deputy Prime Minister.

This government's unprecedented attacks against students and education have had the desired effect.
After cutbacks totalling $7 billion in transfer payments to Quebec for health and education over a period of nine years, after the other attacks against students in Quebec, the province is now facing tuition fees that are twice as high. Today, Quebec students are demonstrating against these attacks.
How can the minister afford to threaten the future of our country by destroying our system of postsecondary education? What justification is there for this policy?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will probably be disappointed to learn that we are increasing our transfer payments to Quebec, not decreasing them.
Next year, under our programs, our transfer payments to Quebec will exceed over $10.3 billion. Of course, in the global management of our budget, we have to consider our expenditures as a whole. We find that, as a Government, we have kept our increase in expenditures at 3.5 per cent over the past five years, while several provinces have increased theirs by as much as 10, 14 or even 17 per cent. We must therefore make sure that everybody share in the effort to reduce the deficit.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, I would personally like to thank all the government members who called the anti-GST Liberal line last week, including the Minister of Finance.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: The government has spent millions of taxpayers' dollars to advertise the GST. It has gone to the expense of setting up a 1-800 information line.
But what do Canadians get when they call that line? The Toronto Homebuilders' Association called for information 20 times. The answers were incomplete and incorrect 75 per cent of the time. The government line gave correct information only five out of 20 times.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister this. If the 1-800 GST number is not an information line, what is it, a Tory advertising line paid for by taxpayers?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the hon. member and his colleagues on that side of the House make use of that number more often.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Gilles Loiselle: When I listen to their interpretation of the GST, I am also tempted to be against it, but when I look at the real project I am all in favour of it.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are using the lines, but the people who are answering the lines are giving out wrong information.
March 22, 1990

Canadians who are thinking of buying a new home today are calling the 1-800 number for information that will affect their decision to buy. The information that is being given out is incomplete and could cost a homeowner thousands of dollars.
Will the minister be honest with the people of Canada? Will he ensure that this 1-800 propaganda line will accurately tell Canadians of the thousands of dollars that they will pay for new homes because of this anti-housing tax called the GST?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. gentleman that the people who are answering the calls to this line are thoroughly professional civil servants. They have studied the technical papers available, something that hon. members on that side of the House have not done.
Of course we look at their answers. We receive reports every day of the questions asked. We are sure they are professional answers.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
In the last session of Parliament, veterinary drug manufacturers were literally forced into complying with the Patent Act under which the whole pharmaceutical industry is regulated and under which no differentiation is made between human and veterinary pharmaceuticals. Nor has any differentiation been made between the two under the Excise Ihx Act or under the Food and Drugs Act.
Now, under the proposed GST, human pharmaceuticals are zero rated while veterinary ones will be taxed. How can the minister possibly justify these contradictions?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologize to the hon. lady. The way she started her question, I failed to listen to the end of it.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can extend the minister's apologies. The hon. member could put her question again.


Beryl Gaffney: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It just goes to show you that the members of the government are not listening to the people.
Oral Questions


Mr. Andre:: They should get to their questions. Stop giving preambles and ask the questions.


Mr.   Dimer@Vancouver Quadra: Meet the new surrogate Speaker right here.


Mr. Speaker:: I am always prepared to co-operate with hon. members if they want to change the rules, but the hon. member for Nepean has the floor.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I think it is necessary to go through the preamble because otherwise he is going to miss the question.
In the last parliamentary session veterinary drug manufacturers were literally forced into complying with the Patent Act under which the whole pharmaceutical industry is regulated and under which no differentiation is made between human and veterinary pharmaceuticals. Nor has any differentiation been made between the two under the Excise Tax Act or under the Food and Drugs Act.
The question is-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Beryl Gaffney: -under the proposed GST human pharmaceuticals are zero rated while veterinary ones are taxed. How can the minister possibly justify these contradictions?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, our decision is consistent with the decisions we have taken throughout, to make sure that our reform is very attentive to the needs of the population of Canada. Obviously, we have had to make some choices. I think the hon. member will understand why we made them.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, that was a non answer.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will put her question.


Beryl Gaffney: The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association estimates small animal health care costs will increase as high as 12 per cent because of the GST.
Given that animal control programs will face a dramatic setback, and given that we will see a decrease in health care provided to small animals, how can the minister possibly justify jeopardizing not only the care of animals, but ultimately humans, just because he wants to grab more money for the government kitty?

March 22, 1990
Oral Questions


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I will resist the temptation to tell the hon. member that I am very caring about her particular problem because I happen to be the owner of a very nice animal. But that is not the point.
What she fails to take into account is the fact that all the inputs presently paid by the veterinarians will no longer be paid after the GST is implemented. This will constitute a considerable diminution of the prices.


LITHUANIA
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has to do with the growing tension in Lithuania and concern over the demand by Mr. Gorbachev that Lithuanians surrender their arms within a given period of time.
It seems to me that this image which is being portrayed of the Lithuanian people is as a violent people who need to be disarmed by the Soviet Union. The Lithuanians have come a long way in their struggle for independence in a remarkably non-violent way through free and fair elections, through the declaration of a freely and fairly elected parliament, et cetera, and with absolutely no violence whatsoever.
I would hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, on behalf of the Government of Canada, would be able to reject this view of the Lithuanian people as a people who are seeking to exert some sort of violence over their own destiny, rather than pursuing it in the democratic way that they have up until now and in which they intend to proceed doing so.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think the House would agree with two things. The first is, as the hon. member has said, there has been a remarkable demonstration of a dedication to a peaceful and democratic means on the part of the people of Lithuania.
Second, the House would believe that the Soviet Union should recognize that and reflect that realization in its actions.
We are concerned about the pressures that the Soviet Union is placing upon Lithuania. We have called in the Ambassador of the Soviet Union on various occasions. I welcome the opportunity the member has provided me to convey that view publicly to the Soviet Union. I think I speak the views of the whole House. I will follow it up in correspondence to Mr. Shevardnadze with whom I have already been in touch respecting this matter.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, part of the problem, it seems to me, is that the Lithuanian Parliament feels that in order to gain the international recognition that it seeks, it has to put in place not only these de jure declarations of independence, but also de facto signs of independence, like border patrols and customs, et cetera. It seems to me that these are part of the problem in terms of the negotiations with the Soviet Union about how to realize independence.
Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs, either within the Government of Canada itself or in consultation with other members of the international community, looking at ways to convey the recognition of the independence process in Lithuania in a way that does not have to wait entirely for all these de facto signs of independence to be displayed? It seems to me that those things are part of the problem in reaching that very independence.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting suggestion and one that I would follow.
Given the non-partisan nature of these discussions on this matter in the House, it might be useful if I could have the benefit of the views of members of the three-party committee who travelled to Lithuania, as well as the members of the standing committee with whom I would consult informally with regard to practical initiatives that Canada might follow to this end.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Small businesses and Tourism). In the brief sent to the Quebec MPs in Ottawa by the Conseil du patronat du Quebec they expresses great concern about the economic impact of the GST, its administrative complexity and its high costs
March 22, 1990

for small businesses. Will the Minister of State (Small Businesses) ask his colleague the Minister of Finance to increase the assistance to small businesses, as requested by the Cornell du patronat du Quebec?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the hon. member that the small business community is now starting to understand the tremendous advantages of the GST for cash flow. On the question of cash flow, the input tax credits will mean that service businesses, as well as manufacturing businesses, will have sources of cash flow more instantly than they have under the present manufacturers' sales tax.
More important, we are going to have a streamlined accounting system, special deductions under the capital cost allowance to put in new equipment, and Revenue Canada task forces helping the small business community take advantage of the GST. This is all good news. The small business community of Canada is starting to recognize this and support it.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, it proves that the minister is not talking to small business people.

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The Cornell du patronat du Quebec also stated in their brief that the one-time $1,000 credit is quite inadequate to compensate small businesses for the administrative costs they will incur while applying the GST. Once and for all, will the Minister listen to small businesses and provide them with the necessary assistance to face the administrative nightmare resulting from the GST?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has been careful to listen to the small business community on this. In fact, when he made his changes to the GST, they reflected further the listening that he and the government have done.
Oral Questions
We have the $1,000 administration fee. We have the changes in the capital cost allowance. We have the streamlined accounting. We have the rebate for the accommodation industry. We have change after change.
Some of them seem small but they are very important to the small business community. As a result of that we have been listening and we will continue to listen.


FISHERIES
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who has been saying, along with the offshore fish companies, that the crisis in the Atlantic fishery is one of too many fishermen chasing too few fish.
The trawlermen who work the offshore vessels have a different story. When the minister met recently in Canso with the trawlermen on National Seas' offshore vessels, they provided him with evidence, including photographs, of large quantities of fish being dumped at sea.
Can the minister tell the House what he has done since that meeting to investigate this potentially devastating information?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, as soon as I was provided with that information by the trawlermen, I asked officials in the department about the situation of the fish stock. What the member has to acknowledge here is that the issue is whether there is a lot of fish or not enough.
There are divergent views on the stock. I invite the hon. member to talk with the fishermen in South West Nova and in all of Atlantic Canada to check their catch rate. I think the hon. member will have his answer.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the minister understood my question. It concerned Canso trawler fishermen who said that huge quantities of fish are unloaded on the high seas.

March 22, 1990
Oral Questions
I want to ask the Minister of Fisheries what he intends to do to look into this potentially devastating situation.


Bernard Valcourt: What I intend to do, Mr. Speaker, is to set up mechanisms to make sure that neither along the coasts nor on the high seas will people be allowed to unload fish into the ocean, as some people claim this is being done. This is why we have introduced the observers program to prevent such situations. I am prepared to work closely with the fishermen to make sure that this kind of activities will not happen again in the future.


FINANCE COMMITTEE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the chairman of the finance committee my question is for the government House Leader.
I am not sure if the government House Leader is aware that on Monday and Tbesday of this week many people requested to be heard on the GST before the committee. The chairman's fax machine was working overtime.
I want to ask the government House leader this. In light of the offer by the chairman of the finance committee, and I quote: "I would be delighted to resign as chairman if that is necessary", can the government House leader now assure the House that the finance committee will be reactivated under a new chairman so that all of these Canadians and many thousands of others can be heard on this very important piece of tax legislation, the GST? Will the committee chairman resign?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, for many weeks and months efforts were made to get the New Democratic Party to co-operate with a reasonable procedure that would allow these people to be heard, allow the bill to be discussed in detail and allow the committee to reach a decision. The New Democrats refused to co-operate with any such effort. Indeed, they are on record as saying they will do everything possible to prevent a decision ever being made by the committee.
Those people were not heard because the New Democratic Party engaged in a 31-hour filibuster which was very entertaining but not too illuminating.
If the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville is suggesting that perhaps we start behaving rationally like mature adults and discuss a procedure for reaching a satisfactory and proper conclusion, I welcome that change. Let us discuss it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the person who was irresponsible, bullheaded and stubborn was the chairman of the finance committee, and the minister knows that.
We have had requests coming in from dozens and dozens and dozens-in fact hundreds-of people across the country to be heard. If he will not reconstitute the committee under a new chairman, whoever that may be, then just how does he propose to let the Canadian people to be heard on the GST?
They want to be heard. They are against the tax. The provinces are against the tax. Small businesses are against the tax. They do not want it. Why not reconstitute the committee? Why not select a new chairman and let the people be heard? Why are you so anti-democratic in this House?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, under parliamentary reform brought in by this government, the committees are masters of their own fate. The chairman is elected by the committee.


John R. Rodriguez: You used jackboots.


Harvie Andre: In fact, were I to issue the kinds of instructions he is asking me to issue, I would undoubtedly be found in contempt. The hon. member would be the first to raise a point of privilege.


Mr. Peterson:: It never stopped you before.


Harvie Andre: There is one way in which things can be done in a mature, adult fashion, and that is for the New Democrats to start behaving like mature adults.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!
#


March 22, 1990


FORESTRY DEVELOPMENT
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Forestry. The Canada-Quebec forest development subsidiary agreement is due to expire on March 31, 1990.
Can the minister tell us whether he intends to renew this agreement and whether he will promote private woodlots, keeping in mind that there are 120,000 private woodlot owners in Quebec and that they supply 21 per cent of lumber used in processing plants?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the agreement on forest renewal is expiring at the end of this fiscal year, and we can point to very impressive results. Naturally, we would be inclined to renew the agreement as expeditiously as possible.
The federal government has always emphasized the restoration and the promotion of private woodlots, and support for the owners of private woodlots as a means of improving and enlarging the wood inventory, not only in the Province of Quebec but throughout Canada. That would be the emphasis we would place on a new agreement as well.


ETHIOPIA
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I would like to ask the minister what is the role for Canada regarding the war in Ethiopia. There are millions of people who are suffering as a result of the war. Are there any initiatives being taken by Canada to speak to each of the sides in the war to bring a resolution to problems that have existed there for decades?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, Canada, along with other countries, has been seeking any means open to us to try to influence that situation, so far without success. We are continuing those efforts.
Oral Questions
One initiative that has been undertaken as a result of an informal meeting of members of all parties of this House interested in the proposal, is that we are exploring the possibility of putting together a delegation of parliamentarians from the Parliaments of Canada, the United States, the Soviet Union and Italy to see if they might be able to have some impact on the situation.
The informal committee of parliamentarians that met here suggested that I ask the hon. member for Rosedale, who was a former ambassador to Ethiopia, to undertake that action on behalf of Canada. He has been in touch with the chairman of the United States congressional committee on hunger and is in touch with representatives of both the Soviet Union and Italy.
We hope that group can be formed and that it might have some success in an area where governments so far have been unable to achieve a breakthrough.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question either for the Deputy Prime Minister or maybe the minister from Newfoundland.
I wrote their colleague, the Minister of Energy, a few days ago to alert him to the environmental and economic time bomb which is ticking away off the Newfoundland coast where PetroCan is doing wildcat exploration without the benefit of a back-up rig to drill a relief well in the event of a blow out, and without any capability to clean up the mess if it does occur.
An oil industry report today confirms the worst fears that I stated in that letter. I want to ask the minister this. What guarantee can the government give us that the richest fishing grounds in the north Atlantic will not be wiped out, will not be at undue risk by the current situation as I have described it?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me to answer on behalf of the Minister of the Environment on this particular issue, the licences and the approvals for drilling offshore Newfoundland and off the east coast are managed by the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board.

March 22, 1990
Oral Questions
Any contingency plans, safety measures, or requirement on the company to provide guarantees that the best possible technology is used and the best possible plans are in place to mitigate against such disasters are part of the licensing and the approval arrangement. Every possible precaution is being taken.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I thank the acting minister, the Minister of Forestry.
That is the answer in front of him. He read it well, but the reality is something different. The reality is that a report today by the Canadian Independent Petroleum Association says that we are at risk out there.
There is a rig out there doing wildcat exploration and nothing out there to drill a relief well in the event of a blow out.
I am asking the minister not to hide behind the licensing regulations. I am asking him what he is going to do if the worse comes to worse today, and our fishing grounds are at risk and we have a wholesale, environmental and economic mess on our hands. What then? That letter he just read from? What action will the government take in that case? What action is it taking now to prevent that from happening?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I did not read from any letter. I just read from a document that is a press release from which I assume the hon. member got his information.


Roger Simmons: No. I wrote the minister a week ago.


Frank Oberle: My information stems from the regulations, the guidelines and the procedures that are in place, agreed to by the industry to mitigate against such potential disaster.
What the hon. member wants to take into consideration is that we still consider offshore development as one of the major initiatives of this government, in co-operation with the Atlantic provinces, one that has the potential to significantly improve the economy of that area. If the hon. member would suggest that we shut down all of these developments in that area to eliminate absolutely all the risks that are always associated with situations like that, then let him say so.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Willowdale. Keeping in mind the time I would ask that the questions be direct.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State told the House, "We follow the guidelines." But, Mr. Speaker, he followed only four of the nine guidelines. My question is: How many other foreign banking companies will you license and give the special treatment you gave to American Express?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat that we have not given American Express special treatment. For three years we discussed with them how to bring them under the rules governing banks in Canada. We are dealing here with a company that is already in Canada, is 90 per cent in the financial sector and competes with our banks but is completely unregulated. We thought that if there were a way to bring them under our rules, we could do so. And we had discussions with them for three years. We set guidelines. We asked them to withdraw from some sectors and we have now solved this problem under the Bank Act.


Mr. Speaker:: A very, very short supplementary question.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, we have this problem for American Express, but let us get specific. There are other companies doing business in Canada that are in the same position as American Express, major financial institutions such as GMAC, General Electric, Sears-Roebuck and Ford Credit.
What is the minister going to say when these companies come knocking on his door and ask for the same treatment that American Express got? Is he going to say: "Welcome, you don't meet our guidelines but neither did American Express"? Or, is he going to say: "I am sorry, the door is closed. We admit now that we made a one-time sweetheart deal for American Express, the special friend of the Mulroney government"?
March 22, 1990


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, since they have not asked us anything I do not know what I would say.
I would be tempted to tell them that they are not primarily a financial institution, but a commercial organization that has grown into some financial activity. I would be tempted to tell them that they are not widely owned like American Express, that they are not publicly traded in some instances and therefore that in my view at this time they would not be acceptable.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader what business he has in mind for the new few days, possibly leading up to next Thursday.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I will try to answer that question, but it becomes increasingly difficult. In trying to project the business for the week it is based on certain assumptions as to what members of the opposition tell us and what the Standing Orders say. I found out that words can be changed rather quickly in the Standing Orders with respect to notice or notice for the bureaucrats at the table and not notice for the House.
With those caveats, let me say that it appears that tomorrow and Monday will be opposition days, with Monday being the last allotted day. On Tuesday, we may return to second reading of Bill C-65, if it is not passed today. Alternatively, we could call Bill C-69, which is the bill dealing with restraint, for second reading.
My priorities for the rest of this month are Bill C-51, the Income Tax Act amendments and Bill C-26, the Railway Act amendments from the budget of last year. We will have to get together and send another message to those ladies and gentlemen in the other place who will not accept the will of the majority of elected representatives. That is the best I can do at this point in time.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is more than I bargained for or expected. Basically we have a program for possibly a month here. The House leader and I know that in this period there are two remaining opposition days. It is not
Business of the House
his fault or mine, but that is the way the cookie crumbles in terms of opposition days. Whether or not he likes it, that is the way it is going to be tomorrow and Monday.
On Tuesday, I take it that Bill C-65 will be the order of the day. The hon. minister said he hoped or was not sure, but I would like to have some kind of assurance from him. Indeed he cannot say that we have not kept our word. When I have given my word to him, I have kept it.
For the sake of good planning and because of the necessity of getting our people ready for good debate, I would like to ask him to confirm that on TUesday we will be debating Bill C-65.


Harvie Andre: Let me say very clearly and absolutely that the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier has never gone back on his word and has recognized that the proper way to conduct business is for us to discuss these matters and for people to keep their word. I apologize, without reservation, if I left that impression.
The fundamental problem is that I had assumed that 48 hours' notice meant 48 hours' notice to me, but apparently it only means 48 hours to the bureaucrats. That caused our plans to be disrupted. We will have to find some way of having the Standing Orders reflect information to the House.
In any event I would like to assure that it is my intention. The reason for the word "may" is so that I am not accused of breaking my word; there are other matters which may cause me to be pushed off my schedule. I am not trying to be devious. I just do not want to say it "shall" occur and then go back on my word to the hon. member.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I know the Clerk of the House and his staff bristle when they are called "bureaucrats". I just wanted to make sure that that word could be struck from the minister's vocabulary, because we consider the Clerk and his staff as servants of the House of Commons, not bureaucrats.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Madam Speaker, would the government House leader not think it wise to hold off calling Bill C-26, to amend the Railway Act, until the Speaker has rendered a ruling on the rightness or wrongness of the legislation and how it is being dealt with by the government? Depending on the Speaker's ruling, the government may find that it has either to withdraw or make substantial changes to the proposed legislation. Does the hon. minister not think it

March 22, 1990
Government Orders
would be wise to hold off calling that bill until after the Speaker has ruled?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I would certainly not call the bill if there was some doubt as to it being in order, but I am not aware that that is a serious obstacle. I merely think it is appropriate to have the legislation dealt with since it came from the budget of April 1989. Since April 1989 whole borders have disappeared in parts of the world. Perhaps this House can deal with a piece of legislation after so many months.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You didn't call it for 10 months.


Harvie Andre: It will be in order. I hope I can get the hon. member's co-operation in dealing with any questions outstanding and finding some way of finally getting it off the Order Paper.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-65, an act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Madam Speaker, I want to reiterate what I said this morning. Because of the ongoing confusion on the part of the government in managing affairs here in the House of Commons, it should not surprise the Canadian people that to is equally confused about managing the finances of this country.
When I left off at one o'clock I was talking about the small crafts harbour program under the public accounts of Canada. In Ontario alone the boats, the fishermen and all the equipment purchased for a boat in use out of a small crafts harbour bring in $300 million annually in tax revenue to the province and the federal government. It is equally distributed, $150 million to the province and $150 million to Ottawa, but the government only puts $3 million back into the small craft harbours program in Canada, which is 1 per cent.
I was also talking about tourism this morning and commending the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood on the excellent work that he has done on the environment. Environment and tourism must go hand in hand, and we have a lot of development and promotion to do throughout the 1990s. It must be remembered that tourism also improves international understanding and peace in the world.
Sometime ago we talked in the House about ministerial travel. That is still an outstanding matter on the public accounts of Canada. This government is the only one left in Canada now that does not submit receipts for ministerial travel. In every province and territory in Canada ministers submit ministerial travel expenses for viewing by their auditor general. Our Auditor General of Canada has yet to see a receipt from any cabinet minister in this government. We will be looking for that statement in the next few days and, if it is not forthcoming, we will certainly want to know why this government is not accountable in that way.
What we are witnessing today is a government that has no shame. This government talks about financial management but does not practise it. The government says it will not increase taxes and then smothers the people in an economic grave of high taxation. This government not only fails to speak for Canadians but ignores their wishes. It is ripping apart the fabric of this country that has taken over a century to put together. It does does not realize that this country is widespread and predominately rural. It fails miserably to respect these established areas and address the problems that they are encountering. Atlantic Canada today is one great example of that. This government has attacked and sold out our once prosperous softwood lumber industry. This government is underhandedly harmonizing the business community and social policies with those of the United States.
This government's policies are the reasons why we have more food banks. I want to repeat this, Madam Speaker: this government's policies are the reasons why we have more food banks in existence in Canada today than we have had since the depression of the 1930s, and then it talks about the great management of public affairs. Such policies are also the reason why we have homeless people sleeping in the doorways of buildings in our larger cities. By wiping out and attacking small town Canada, rural Canada, this government is forcing people
March 22, 1990

into the larger urban areas where the cost of living is out of reach and where they become lonely in the crowd and worse off than they were before.
Only when we have a government that addresses the problems of the people, giving them encouragement to improve themselves in order to meet daily challenges, only then will we have a situation where the people handling the public accounts of Canada can honestly say that the money has been well spent and well invested.
This government must go. From the poll that is out this morning, more than three out of four Canadians agree with that statement. All the rhetoric of this government, all the rhetoric of the Minister of Finance, all the rhetoric of the Prime Minister and the broken promises must be replaced with a Liberal government with integrity and an agenda to bring Canada and Canadians back together again, so that they can live in harmony and with confidence in the future and so that we can also get on with creating additional harmony in the world today and manage the peace that is taking place in eastern Europe.
Canada has always played a major role in world affairs and that is probably the biggest public account we can discuss today, because if we as a nation can add greatly to promoting peace and retaining this peaceful development and transition that is taking place in eastern Europe, we will probably save the world the expense of another world war. That can be the biggest public account one could ever think of.
Madam Speaker, you have been very patient. I thank you very much for that and also for your consideration, when I have had about six interruptions along the way since I started this speech this morning.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Madam Speaker, let me start out by saying that I look forward to hearing exactly how we will find somewhere in this country a Liberal Party with integrity. It is something for which I have searched for many years in the history of our country, and I cannot myself say that I have found it, which is not to say that I support this borrowing bill by this government.
We have the remarkable sight of a government with 17 per cent popularity across this country coming to the House of Commons and saying to us: "All we want to
Government Orders
borrow is $25.5 billion". With 17 per cent support, "give us $25.5 billion".
I am certain that there have been outrageous demands made by governments throughout the history of the world. There have been outrageous demands made by governments throughout the history of this country. I doubt if we have ever heard anything more outrageous than a government which has just 17 per cent of the people of this country behind it saying to this House of Commons: "Give us the right to borrow $25.5 billion".
For us in the Parliament of Canada to give this incompetent group of ministers, this incompetent group of committee chairs, this incompetent group of members of Parliament, the carte blanche to go out and borrow $25.5 billion would assume that we had some confidence in their ability to manage this economy; that we had some confidence in their competence. I ask you, Madam Speaker: How could we possibly in light of what has taken place over the last few years? Let us be even more precise: in light of what has taken place over the last week, how could we have anything but a sense of complete disregard, complete disrespect, and complete lack of confidence in this government in front of us?
I must give my congratulations to the new minister who introduced this legislation. He is a worthy and honourable addition to this government. That is not something I would say about a great many ministers within this government, but I certainly say it about him. I want to put the point very clearly. In starting his discussion about this borrowing bill, he made the case that this was somehow justified because the budget record of this government was a budget record of success, a budget record which could be believed in by the people of Canada, and a budget record which somehow was doing something positive for people across this country. If we take the most recent budget we see absolutely clearly that it has been a set of attacks on the weakest and most vulnerable groups and people within our government's line of fire.
The Conservatives have attacked the poor with cutbacks to social assistance programs to various provinces. They have attacked aboriginal Canadians with cut-backs in support to groups such as the Assembly of First

defective. Yet, in order to try to save a seat in Cape Breton, which it lost anyway, the government gave $2.2 million to the same company.
That may seem like a small concern, but to the taxpayers across this country, $2.2 million wasted and $2.2 million given to an incompetent company which had not paid back the money it had received previously strikes me as something which is highly questionable to those Canadians.
I admit that it is a small matter compared to some of the other items of ridiculous waste which this government has put into effect.
I was part of a committee which looked carefully at the sale of the de Havilland Corporation to the Boeing Corporation of the United States. The government in its ideological blindness decided to privatize de Havilland. It sold a company which was worth at least $1 billion, possibly $2 billion-it was never quite clear-for the total price of $90 million. That itself might seem to be enough of an example of incompetence and stupidity on the part of this government.
Let me tell you, this government did not stop there. A few years later the Boeing corporation came back for more. Despite the fact that Boeing had a chance to go through every inch of factory at de Havilland before making that purchase, before signing that deal, Boeing stated, as a naive company, that it just did not realize or understand the problems that it was getting into. That poor Boeing corporation with annual sales of $5 billion per year simply had to ask the government to help it put this de Havilland corporation into a situation where safety measures are up to scratch throughout this factory-
We in our party believe very strongly in such safety measures. We believe they are the responsibility of the owners of companies. Boeing had complete access to every inch of that factory, every document and every piece of material with respect to the financial state of that company, because Boeing testified to that effect in committee. We believe that it was responsible for establishing those safe conditions. Did the Government of Canada show a little bit of backbone to this American company which had already managed to purchase an
Government Orders
important Canadian national asset at $90 million, when it was probably worth $1 billion?
No, Madam Speaker. Instead another $160 million was given to Boeing.
It is unbelievable that Canada actually paid the Boeing Corporation of the United States $70 million to take off our hands this $1 billion asset. That is responsibility, Conservative style. That is economic management, Conservative style.


Mr. Parker:: That is incompetence.


Steven W. Langdon: My colleague says that is incompetence. I think he is too kind. He offers just mild condemnation when absolute abject stupidity is what should be identified with this government for these and other sets of actions which it has undertaken.
When I first spoke in the House back in 1984, I suggested that the government's plans to try to cut back, to slice important social programs, employment programs, programs that helped science and technology would mean that by 1990 we would still have a deficit in this country of over $30 billion. The Conservatives laughed. They said there was no chance of that happening.
Well, Madam Speaker, let me quote from the budget documents for the fiscal year ending 1990 which state that the level of deficit which this government is running on a year-to-year basis is $30.5 billion. Its approach has been, right from the start, prophesized as bankrupt. It is now seen to have been totally bankrupt. Instead of giving this country the economic base to build for the future, it has given us a debt of $351 billion, a year-by-year deficit of over $30 billion, interest rates which are higher than they have been since before this government took power; levels of unemployment which, once more, on a quarterly basis are rising; taxes which have gone up 31 times in the last six years.
All of that is combined with tremendous breaks for the wealthy, such as the exemptions on capital gains tax. Let me give an example of another tax break. Madam Speaker, I know that you would not be somebody who would be likely to do this, but let us say that your are in business and take a group of associates out for a magnificent meal.

March 22, 1990
Government Orders
If you were to go out after the meal to a private box at a Montreal Expos game or a Toronto Blue Jays game or an Edmonton Oilers game or a Vancouver Canucks game, do you know that you would be able to write off 80 per cent of those entertainment costs against the taxes that your company would owe to the Government of Canada? Those are the kinds of benefits which have been given out by governments in our country.
One of the most important corporations in the City of Windsor is Hiram Walker Distilleries, a corporation which has employed people in Windsor for years. It was subject to a massive takeover bid by Olympia & York, the Reichmann corporation in Toronto which wanted to spend over $2 billion to purchase Hiram Walker.
As it turned out they were not successful in taking over Hiram Walker. If they had succeeded in purchasing Hiram Walker at a cost of $2 billion, they would have had to pay interest on the $2 billion which they borrowed. The interest on that $2 billion would have been deducted from the taxes that Olympia & York would have had otherwise to pay to the Government of Canada. A takeover that would not have created a single job and would in fact have eliminated jobs, would have ended up being paid for by the people of Canada through tax breaks that are built into our system. That is the kind of reality which exists in this country.
It is an approach which has many problems associated with it. Perhaps the biggest problem is the tremendous unfairness which it creates in our country.
Let me say that the average person in my constituency, if he or she goes out to a Tigers baseball game, if he or she goes out for a meal, that person cannot take 80 per cent of the cost off the taxes that they pay. Let me make it very clear, if some of my constituents are watching, please do not let me be seen as suggesting that they try to deduct from their income taxes 80 per cent of the cost of their entertainment.
Of course, they do not get tax breaks. The average person in this country does not get a tax break. The ordinary family in this country does not receive tax breaks. The large corporations do, and that is what we have to change.
That is why we cannot support anything that would demonstrate any confidence in this bunch of incompetents, as my colleague has called them charitably, on the other side of the Chamber. They are a bunch of incompetents who, during the election campaign in 1988, told the people of Canada that if free trade was accepted there would be no problem for social programs. The Prime Minister said social programs would be enhanced.
I did not bring my dictionary, but we have clearly here got a new meaning for the word "enhanced". My dictionary has always said that enhanced means improved, made better. Is that not right?
Now it seems to mean destroyed, cut back, chopped, reduced, because that is what has happened to the unemployment insurance program and pensions. There have been clawbacks on pensions. That has happened to family allowances and transfers to provinces for health care. It has happened in the case of day care and regional development programs. We could go through a massive list of social benefits which have been attacked by a party that at the same time has given out benefits for the rich and for the corporate sector. Yet there are cut-backs for the poor, cut-backs for social programs, cut-backs for the future.
The minister stated at the beginning of his speech today that we had a great budget in front of us. Of course it is the budget that implements the goods and services tax.
I have to say that I am proud to have started a filibuster in the finance committee this week to tiy to stop this committee and this party from seeing to it that no further witness could be heard on that issue.


Mr. Nicholson:: Shame on you. It is an abuse of the parliamentary process.


Steven W. Langdon: This government decided that it has heard enough witnesses. It could not take the hundreds of sheets of requests which have come in from groups like the Nelson and District Chamber of Commerce, wanting to be able to speak; the Association of Canadian Publishers saying that these committee hearings should not be shut down; or the Okanagan Mainland Real Estate Board. I point out that these are not exactly the usual groups that communicate with the New Democratic Party. But on this issue they saw that we were fighting,
March 22, 1990

standing up for the rights of small business, for the rights of people to have some democratic chance to speak out.


Mr. Heap:: They did not ask the Liberals to speak for them?


Steven W. Langdon: No, I am sorry. I have to tell my colleague from Spadina they did not send copies to the Liberal party. For instance, the Wetaskiwin Chamber of Commerce from Alberta wrote to us saying: "The chamber feels that more groups should be heard, as not sufficient people have been given the opportunity to express their dissatisfaction and opposition to the proposed GST." That one is signed by Ron Noel, president of the Wetaskiwin and District Chamber of Commerce.
I could quote from another letter which I received from the Sherwood Park and District Chamber of Commerce, which is also in Alberta. The last time I checked, all of these constituencies from which these various pieces of material have come are all held by Conservative members of Parliament. I quote to you from the Sherwood Park and District Chamber of Commerce which said after the government attempted to shut down the hearings on the GST:
On March 20, 1990, the Board of Directors unanimously voted to request your committee to continue with the GST hearings for groups that wish to be heard. Closure on the GST hearings is not appropriate for such an important issue.
I could go through sheet after sheet from business groups, trade union groups, hospital groups, teachers groups, groups across this country that communicated absolutely clearly that they did not want these goods and services tax hearings to be stopped. Yet, despite that there was an act which I have to say as a member of Parliament I have never seen an equivalent to in terms of the completely arbitrary, illegal and totalitarian methods employed.
It was an action that ran completely against anything in Beauchesne's, anything in the Standing Orders of this House or the Standing Orders which affect committees of this House, an action completely anti-democratic and completely totalitarian.
These kinds of letters were pouring in to the chair and the clerk of the committee and to myself as a member of the committee. These communications were coming in from across this country, not just from trade union groups, not just from groups in Alberta, but from groups
Government Orders
from every province in this country, including solidarity populaire in the province of Quebec, from chamber of commerce groups in the province of Ontario, from small businesses in Saskatchewan, from small business professional groups in the province of Manitoba and the province of British Columbia. There were hundreds of communications telling us that we must not stop these GST hearings before the people of Canada have a complete chance to speak out as they wished to. When people across the country people saw what was taking place, they saw to it to communicate as effectively and as quickly as they could to ensure that their positions were put forward in front of this committee. Because this wave of communication was coming in, the chairman of this committee cut it off. He cut it off in a way that was totally unparliamentary, totally undemocratic, and totally totalitarian.
To conclude, this is a government of incompetence and a government that has acted stupidly. It is a that government continues to act without a sense of strategy or purpose in its economic policy. It is a government which has moved this week to take totalitarian and undemocratic actions which I certainly cannot accept and my party cannot accept. For this reason, we will proudly stand up and vote against giving authority to this bunch of spendthrifts and incompetents to borrow yet another $25.5 billion.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 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 Mackenzie- The economy; the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park-Food Banks; the hon. member for Thunder Bay- Atikokan.
There is no period for questions and comments after the first three speeches. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today in this debate.
What is the government asking us to do in Bill C-65? These Tories across the way want us to let them borrow $25.5 billion for public works and general purposes, so

March 22, 1990
Government Orders
they say. I ask you, Madam Speaker, you being the non-partisan person that you are, if you had $25.5 billion, would you give it to those folks across the way? Surely not after the incompetent management that they have provided to the people of Canada and to the public treasury during recent years.
The government across the way has so mismanaged our country that it has succeeded in convincing just about everyone in Canada to vote for someone else. Today a public opinion poll by Gallup came out. I will say this so that the members can understand very clearly.
I see a few members of Parliament from Ontario and they will know that the Conservative Party in Ontario enjoys the support-and I use the word "enjoy"-of some 13 per cent of the Canadian population. That tells us what a good job the government has done. There are probably 13 per cent of Canadians who still believe that Elvis Presley is alive. Those people across the way think that we, the representatives of the people, are going to give them $25.5 billion while only 13 per cent of Canadians think that they can actually run the show. The short answer is, no-nyet.
-not one cent to the Conservatives opposite.
Madam Speaker, not long ago, the government brought down its Budget. In that Budget, the government claimed-the government, how shall I say it, was stretching the truth. I wouldn't go so far as to say it was lying, although I suppose I could, as long as I don't say an individual member is lying, of course. The government was stretching the truth, and I would even say it has an almost morbid tendency to try to embellish the truth for Canadians. They even tried to make Canadians believe the present Budget does not raise taxes. That, Madam Speaker, is not really true. Look, I have some evidence might here of tax increases in the Budget.

The Minister of Finance in his budget has frozen for two years transfers to the provinces for post-secondary education and health care. Consequently, that is going to
cause the provinces to increase taxes. So there is an indirect tax in that measure right there.
In the budget there is also reference to the goods and services tax and the intention of the government to proceed with this item.
On page 135 of the budget it indicates very clearly that the government will end up with a surplus of over $1 billion by replacing the existing manufacturers' sales tax with the goods and services tax. In other words, there is $1 billion tax increase right in the budget on the goods and services tax alone.
We will have to remember that there is deindexation of personal income taxes, which is the same as a 3 per cent increase in taxes, or close to it, every year. There is the clawback of family pensions. I see the Minister for International Trade across the way who will know about the clawback of pensions. That will generate an extra $2 billion. That is $2 billion of tax increases. The government across the way is not telling Canadians the whole truth and nothing but the truth in regard to taxes.
The government tells us we should give it more money, $25.5 billion, because it needs it to run the affairs of state. What did the Tories do with the money we gave them last time? What did they spend it on? Let me give you a few examples.


An hon. member:: Give us some examples.


Don Boudria: The members across the way are insisting that I give them some details on those expenditures. I can tell that they want us to elaborate on what the government across the way did with the funds.
The government did use funds for things other than building strip joints and locking priests in jail. But it has done both of those things as well. That is just some of the expenditures. And, yes, that does cost money. Incarcerating priests and building strip joints is very expensive. But those are two activities that the government has decided to undertake over recent days and months.
I have an article from The Ottawa Citizen of March 9, 1990, entitled "$111M tax tab well spent, Wilson says". It reads:
The Sill-million tab this year for the proposed goods and
services tax was money properly spent, Finance Minister Michael
Wilson said Thursday.
March 22, 1990

'A government has the responsibility to make preparations for legislation it is considering," Wilson told the Commons.
So you see we have $111 million spent by the government toward the administration of a tax that has not yet been approved by the House of Commons and hopefully, of course, it will not be approved at all. Hopefully, after I conclude my remarks today, the members across the way will understand that they have to change their minds and withdraw this offensive provision.
I have another article from The Toronto Star, so obviously it has to be the truth. This article is from July 15, 1989. It talks about the use of government jets by cabinet ministers. I know the Tories are very sensitive about the jets. The former Minister of Transport used to be known affectionately as "Benny and his jets". He no longer is the Minister of Transport. He has been sent off to bigger and better things.
This is the kind of money spent and the usefulness of those expenditures. Keep in mind as I read these expenditures that the government wants us to allow it to borrow $25.5 billion more after it did what I am going to read right now. An article in The Toronto Star of July 15, 1989, which is obviously very accurate and very true, of course, states:
Deputy Prime Minister-took the jet back to Ottawa from the west twice in June,-$84,500.
Defence Minister Bill McKnight took the jet to Saskatoon - $ 35,000.
On May 30, Grains and Oilseeds Minister-flew to Winnipeg-
-as though there were not flights from Ottawa to Winnipeg-
-$27,000.
In May, External Affairs Minister-used a Challenger to shuttle between Paris, Madrid and Brussels -
Again, there are so many airports in some of those European countries that you have a hard time driving 50 miles without seeing one. Here is the cost of this one:
-$112,500.


An hon. member:: Imagine!


An hon. member:: Repeat that.


Don Boudria: My colleague wants me to repeat this. I will have to do that. "In May of 1989, the Minister of External Affairs used a Challenger to shuttle between Paris, Madrid and Brussels. That cost $112,500". The
Government Orders
minister also sent his wife back here on a separate trip which cost $79,000, to add to the amount that I have just stated. Once all that was over, the minister himself decided to fly to Calgary on the jet and that cost another $48,000.
In March, 1989, since the last election, and we are talking about all the reasons why this government should not get any more money because it is not using it right, the Minister of Sport at the time-he has since lost his job-flew from Ottawa to Sherbrooke. That cost $8,000.
As you know, the quickest way to get to Sherbrooke from here is to drive because by the time you go to the airport, warm up the plane, land it and take your car into town, it is just as quick to drive. That would not cost $8,000.
The Associate Minister of Defence went to Vienna to the opening of the arms talks and that cost $96,000 on a government jet. That is all for that particular article in The Toronto Star.


Mr. Crosbie:: You must be disappointed.


Don Boudria: Let me continue. I have lots more. I want the minister to know that there are a lot more.


John Carnell Crosbie: How about Herb and Otto Lang?


An hon. member:: What about Pierre?


Don Boudria: I am glad the member across the way said: "What about Pierre?" I am so glad to hear that, because in the days when Mr. Trudeau was the Prime Minister, he used to go to China to speak. He would bring eight people with him. Do you remember the last trip that the Prime Minister took to southeast Asia? There were 75 people on the plane. Can you imagine that?


John Carnell Crosbie: How much did that cost?


Don Boudria: As a matter of fact, he could not use a 10-seater plane. He had to charter a plane from Air Canada in order to put everyone on board.


An hon. member:: Is that the one with the video equipment?


An hon. member:: That's the one with the champagne dispenser unit.


Don Boudria: That tells you just what kind of spendthrifts these governments are.

March 22, 1990
Government Orders
We all remember when the Prime Minister used to fly with two jets. Do you remember that? The Prime Minister would fly in one jet with a back-up jet that could be seen in the mirror. Just so he would have something to look at in the rearview mirror. That is a backup. You can understand how useful that is. If the plane runs out of gas in mid-air at 35,000 feet he could presumably jump from one jet to the other.


An hon. member:: That's tricky.


Don Boudria: I know it is tricky, but when you are the great one there are many things you can do. Presumably, the great one figured a way to do that.
I have a few more little goodies here. This is from The Toronto Star of December 6, 1989.


An hon. member:: It's a great newspaper.


Don Boudria: I know it is a great newspaper, as my colleagues say, and I agree.
The Minister for External Relations used more than $222,000 worth of flying time for trips to Barbados and Africa. The Secretary of State for External Affairs spent $165,000. This is for the period between August 8 and November 7. The Minister of National Defence-remember him, I talked about him in the previous article. He went to Cyprus in a government jet, stopped in Portugal on the way. That cost $179,000.


An hon. member:: That is a bad one.


Don Boudria: I know it is not much when you are the government and you want the House of Commons to give you $25.5 billion. What is a billion to the government across the way?
I have quite a few examples of this kind of expenditure. The worst offender has to be the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance thinks that he can advertise the GST to such an extent that people will actually like it. That sounds naive, but have you noticed the more he advertises the GST, the lower the popularity becomes of the present government? So, in a way I like the ads because right now the government's popularity is at 13 per cent in Ontario. If it advertises more the government will soon reach a minus factor in terms of popularity. Unfortunately, the taxpayers of Canada just
cannot put up with more government advertising and other such useless expenditures.
I have a story from The Globe and Mail of August 22, 1989. It states in this particular ad that the Canadian government will spend a lot of money on ads but this time the ads have been given to a U.S. firm.
It was bad enough that the government was spending money on its Tory friends in Canada. Now it is giving these ads to their friends in the United States. There has been a union of various companies, a marriage of convenience between Foster and McCann-Erickson. This new conglomerate is now going to partake in some of the government largesse in the way of advertising.
I have a list of expenditures for government advertising. Do you know who the top 10 ad spenders are in Canada? Do you think it is General Motors? No. Do you think it is Proctor & Gamble? No. Do you think it is the Tories across the way using taxpayers' dollars?


An hon. member:: Yes, probably.


Don Boudria: Yes, you guessed right. That is exactly what it is. In 1989, the government across the way spent $76 million of the taxpayers' money to advertise such lovely measures as the goods and services tax.
Quite apart from everything else, I think it is about time the government changed its advertising company if that is the kind of result it receives from all of this. The yield has not exactly been great. If you had invested $76 million of your money, Madam Speaker, and the end result of it was that only 13 per cent of the people thought you had any credibility at all, you would start thinking that you have been doing something wrong.


An hon. member:: That's why the Tories went to the U.S.


Don Boudria: My colleague across the way wonders if that is why they went to the U.S.
It is interesting to note that the government spent $76 million. Proctor and Gamble, which shows us all its soap and all those other fine things that they do, spends $61 million in a year. That is their business, selling us and trying to convince us that their products are good. At least in their case, people have not stopped buying their products. But people have stopped buying the line of the Government of Canada. General Motors spent $56 million in advertising; Molson, $55 million; Unilever, $46 million; and McDonald's Restaurants spent less than
March 22, 1990

half what the Tories across the way spent in advertising in one year, and all I see everywhere is McDonald's advertising.
So, you can see, Madam Speaker, that the government has not been using the money that we gave it last time very usefully and you can understand the reluctance that my colleagues and I having of giving any new money to those Tories. We are, of course, trying to look at this objectively, as we always do on this side of the House. But, Madam Speaker, you can understand that giving $25.5 billion or allowing these Tories to borrow, even worse, $25.5 billion after they spent our money this way-


Fernand Robichaud: They have more travelling to do.


Don Boudria: My colleague from Beausejour says that perhaps they have a bit more travelling to do. That could be. Maybe they have a bit more advertising in their plans. I know some say that they could use a bit more advertising. Their popularity is not all that great right now. However, I only wish they would use their own money to prop up the Tory fortunes instead of ours, instead of the money that belongs to the Canadian public.

Madam Speaker, I am sorry to have to cut short my speech, because I would have liked to say more, especially about the cutbacks at our post offices and other offensive measures taken by the Conservative Government in its last Budget.
In any case, the short answer to the government's request for permission to borrow $25.5 billion is no, nyetl


Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, I would also like to comment on what was said by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). In concluding, he said that he was sorry because he could have gone on down the list.
I will be glad to do it for him. If we go back to the year 1983-84, perhaps I may comment on Marc Lalonde's scientific research. A program was supposed-


An hon. member:: Time!


Guy St-Julien: I heard an hon. member say "time", because he is in a hurry for me to finish, not because he wants to rise in the House to speak to my comments. I wish he would. I wish he would move that the Government of Canada request a royal inquiry into the theft of
Government Orders
the century perpetrated by the Liberals from 1983 to 1984.
He doesn't seem to appreciate that, but he won't be able to yell "time" later on-
Madam Speaker, as part of my questions and comments, I would like to ask the hon. member for Glengar-ry-Prescott-Russell what he thinks about the theft of the century. It was a scientific program that was supposed to cost $200 million, but officials told Marc Lalonde to stop the program because it was a drain on the budget. This was early in 1984, but Lalonde said: No, we are going to have an election. The program cost exactly $3.9 billion! After months of investigation the Auditor General complained according to the newspapers that it was a disgrace, a waste of money, the $1.9 billion theft of the century perpetrated by the Liberals.
Madam Speaker, my colleague said a while ago that the Challenger aircraft took off from Portugal, made a few stops and flew on to Canada. Of course they have to make a few stops to refuel, otherwise they would never make it to this country.
I would remind the hon. member that they never rose in the House to urge that a royal commission be appointed to look into the $1.9 billion fraud in this $3.9 billion project. To think that some people in Canada-even in Victoria a mechanic got $5 million. He was supposed to prepare a program and do some research on data processing. He got $5 million from the Liberals and today this Victoria mechanic is in Hong Kong writing a book on break dancing. Not bad at all!
Closer to the riding of the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, when the Liberals were in office a group of foreign businessmen got $6 million to do research on wartime mini-submarines. After months of investigation the government officials found out that these were old plans of World War II-vintage mini-submarines. They got $6 million for that and then vanished.
But to get back to my story, on February 19,1990 I said "the worst tax fraud of the century is again the topic of a Globe and Mail article". A moment ago the hon. member referred to several newspaper articles. I will tell him about a recent one, February 7, 1990, reminding Canadians that the Liberals in 1983-84 wasted billions, not millions, but billions of dollars. Using Marc Lalonde's Scientific Research Tax Credits, one Kenneth Ford in 1983-84 was able to cheat the Canadian government of several million dollars, which he invested with impunity

March 22, 1990
Government Orders
in Costa Rica. The former Liberal government had estimated that the program would cost only $200 million, but it ended up costing $3.9 billion.
Madam Speaker, when the hon. member says some things about this government, like members or ministers who travel the world in Challengers, I think that they may just be following the policy of the Liberal government whose members travelled around for 20 years. I am about to put a question on the Order Paper asking for all-I will do it, take note. What did the Liberals do with the Challenger aircraft for 20 years? We will have some little surprises!
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I want to say about this disaster, this theft of the century by the Liberals, the government of the day, that we could have built 50 hospitals in Canada with that $1.9 billion. Think about it! It's serious! $1.9 billion, Madam Speaker. That is what we today call the theft of the century and the Liberals were responsible.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I am always delighted to reply to a Member of the Party which asked Giovanni Mowinckel to build at 24 Sussex Drive a wardrobe large enough to accommodate 90 pair of shoes for the Prime Minister. I am always pleased to reply to these people.
I am always pleased to reply to these people who awarded contracts without tender for the construction of Place Vincent-Massey, in Hull, and who renewed leases which have not yet expired to benefit their Tory friends. I am always pleased to reply to these people who pratically gave away Mirabel lands in certain cases to some other conservative friends Madam Speaker and to answer any question they might want to ask.


Guy St-Julien: We kept them for ourselves! Tell us about the fraud of the century!


Don Boudria: If I understand correctly, the Hon. Member is seeking information about the area of research and development. I am glad to note this renewed interest in the area, because before the election campaign in 1984, the leader of the Tory Party, in his madness to promise the moon, had committed himself in
his very first mandate, to doubling the amount earmarked for research and development.
Well, the amounts which this Govemement invested in 1989 in research and development hardly reached that level. The percentage of the gross domestic product spent in research and development when down from 1.37 in 1984 to 1.32 in 1989. Therefore, this Government is showing no interest in research and development, because it is anxious to see this activity carried out in the United States by his Tory friends instead of the Canadian people, Madam Speaker.


Guy St-Julien: Tell us about the $3.9 billion project. Tell us about the fraud of the century. Tell us about those crooks!


Don Boudria: That is the sad record of our Tory friends opposite in the area of research and technology. As a matter of fact, we will deal again with this issue in the House in a few days, because my Liberal Party friends want Canadians to know more about the lack of commitment to research and development of my hon. friends opposite.


Guy St-Julien: It is a $1.9 billion fraud!


Mr. Harvey:: Madam Speaker, it is always an amusing and edifying experience to listen to the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I listened with special attention to the tales he told of cabinet ministers in the current government travelling about the country with astonishingly large entourages and generally wasting the taxpayers' money in such fashion. The member mentioned the more frugal times during the Liberal tenure of the last several years. I would like his comment on one time in particular that I recall. It was an extremely light entourage. I remember there was a time when the Prime Minister travelled to western Canada with nothing but a middle finger.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I am always pleased to respond to my colleague from Alberta. I am pleased to speak to him about government travel. He gave me an excellent opportunity to remind Canadians of a new article which I have just found. This is about the Commonwealth Conference in Malaysia and Costa Rica.
March 22, 1990

The Prime Minister's entourage, in their brilliance, decided that they wanted to have the Prime Minister's own personal limousine in Costa Rica. What did they do? They took a government plane, I believe a Hercules, loaded two Cadillacs into the Hercules, and flew it down to Costa Rica. Little did they know that the cars here work with unleaded gas while those in Costa Rica do not. Guess what happened. They drove the cars out of the plane and the tanks were empty. They had to load them back on the plane and fly them back here because there was no gas. That is the kind of stupidity that we see from the government people across the way. Then they dare to ask us for $25.5 billion. I repeat what I said before, no, nyet, not one cent.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate with the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker- [Translation]


Guy St-Julien: Wait until I ask you my question about the 20 years of Liberal administration and the Challengers.


An hon. member:: Please, ask other questions!


Guy St-Julien: I know your tricks!


An hon. member:: We are telling you a few things, my boy!


An hon. member:: Watch out, let us keep a curl tongue! [English]


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, order. Thank you. We will all listen to the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina.


Steven W. Langdon: I rise on a point of order. I just wanted to check with you, Madam Speaker, to see that the disturbance which took place at the start of my colleague's speech would not be deducted from his time or anything like that. Could I have your assurance on that?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I can assure the hon. member that I will not even deduct his intervention.
Government Orders


Steven W. Langdon: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I appreciate that.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to join in the debate on Bill C-65 through which the government is asking us to vote $25.5 billion borrowing authority. This is an amount almost as large as the annual deficit that this government runs, and it is remarkable that it would ask us to vote for it. Of course, it has ways of getting its results without letting us debate very much but I am glad that at least it has allowed us a little time to debate this because there is a serious point that I want to raise, and that is, as has been made clear by the finance minister, the extent to which Canada is losing its sovereignty through being indebted to foreign lenders.
This government started out in September, 1984, by saying that Canada needs foreign capital. It has turned handsprings to reduce all the defences that Canada had to prevent takeovers by foreign capital and reduction of our own capital, but now this government is admitting that in a sense we have too much control by foreign capital.
It is very interesting, in the light of the euphoria in our country and the joy of some people over what is happening in eastern Europe with forums of democracy being brought into eastern Europe that are more familiar to Canada, that our own democracy, with the forums that we like, is finding itself less and less able to do the democratic thing because of our subordination to foreign capital.
It is all the more remarkable because this was apparently never thought of by this government before November 21, 1988. In the months preceding November 21, 1988, this government was promising to spend billions and billions of dollars on every program you could think of. There was no problem. There was no worry about external debt, no worry about the annual deficit. You would like more day care? Certainly, more day care. More of this? Certainly, more of that, and so on.
After November 21, 1988, when this government got elected, partly on the basis of those inflationary promises, the finance minister suddenly discovered that we have a big external debt and a big deficit. So he not only had to wipe out most of the promises he had made, he had also to undo many of the gains that this country had

March 22, 1990
Government Orders
made over the last half century in unemployment insurance and other social programs.
This government wants us to believe that it is the federal debt itself that is the source of all these problems, that if it were not for the federal debt our country would be free. To a small extent that is true because the program spending, the money we spend on the necessary work of government, including social programs, is not what is breaking our budget. It is not what is putting us in the red. In fact, we are collecting more revenue than we are spending on programs.
In fact it is the debt that is putting us further into debt, it is the debt and the interest payments on it that is making it impossible or us to balance our budget, since the government refuses to collect the adequate taxes from the companies and individuals who can pay them. As a result, today we have the weekly corporate welfare bum award presented by the member for Nickel Belt.
The program as a percentage of our gross national product is really quite small. It has dropped from 19.5 per cent of our gross national product to 16 per cent in six years. So it is not that we are living beyond our means. The revenues cover more than our program spending. The hook is this debt which this government has allowed to double in the last six years.
As is well known, we have interest rates that are five points higher than the U.S. interest rates. That is by this government's choice. This government has refused to take action to lower Canadian interest rates. They are also far higher in the real sense than they were during most of our history. During most of our history, real interest rates, the difference between the nominal interest rate and the inflation rate, was about 1 or 2 per cent. Now it is more like 6 and even 8 per cent.
That is what is killing small business. That is what is causing a record rate of bankruptcy in small business. That is why this government claims it has to cut back on the social programs which the Prime Minister used to call a sacred trust. Obviously, he considers them a trust, not in the sense of a sacred trust, but in the sense of a financial trust. But he called them a sacred trust.
Why do we have these high interest rates? It might be just because Mr. Crow and the finance minister are pathologically afraid of inflation. However, more seriously, I think it is because they want a policy that they
believe will keep on attracting international capital into Canada and subordinating Canada to an international global interest system.
We had a confirmation of that in Januaiy when the interest rate was allowed to drop by a few decimal points. Foreign capital immediately began withdrawing their short term money and chased the interest rate back up again.
The international money markets now have Canada by the throat much more firmly than they did when this government took power in 1984. The finance minister is afraid to confront international capital. In fact, he has decided that since we cannot lick them we will join them which, of course, is good for some people. It is good for the people who are in the business of capital. It is bad for the large majority of Canadian people; men, women and children.
The finance minister claims to be realistic, but in fact what he is doing, according to his own figures, is reducing the standard of living of Canadians. By his own budget figures, it will actually be reduced by over 1 per cent over the next several years. Instead of increasing as a real rate of income, real buying power, it is going to be reduced.
I want to point out what happens to countries which allow themselves to be pushed into this cycle of reducing their standard of living so that they can feed the banks, especially the foreign banks. There is a great deal of experience about this in the countries to the south of North America, that is, in the southern hemisphere mainly. These are countries that used to be the colonies of western Europe, some of which then became colonies of the United States and are now under a sort of neo-colonialist rule by the banks, mainly of western Europe and the United States.
Recently I had the privilege of attending for my party at the subcommittee on external debt of the Standing Committee on External Affairs. I heard the Reverend Jaime Wright, a Presbyterian minister from Brazil and a close associate of Cardinal Ams there in social justice matters. Jaime Wright was brought to Canada to speak for the Canadian Council of Churches during its Ten Days for World Development tour. It was our good fortune that he also spoke to the parliamentary subcommittee on external debt.
March 22, 1990

He pointed out what has happened to Brazil. This is a warning to Canadians, because Canada has a debt of several hundred billion dollars, as does Brazil. Canada has a smaller population so our per capita debt is even higher than Brazil's.
Jaime Wright pointed out that between 1972 and 1988 Brazil paid $176 billion U.S. of interest on its debt. Yet today its total debt is only $113 billion. In other words, it is paying far more on interest than on capital. He pointed out that between 1980 and 1987, Brazil lost $50 billion in capital. It was transferred to other countries, that is, capital flight, the sort of thing that we notice going on with some of our big real estate operators like Campeau. That $50 billion, he reckons, would be enough to build up all the slums of Rio de Janeiro 50 times. In 1988, the servicing of Brazil's external debt cost $17 billion, which would be enough to build two tunnels under the English Channel.
He particularly attacks floating interest rates, and this is something that advocates of borrowing abroad ought to take account of. He points out that in Brazil and other Latin American and Third World countries there have been enormous losses in the 1980s on account of the floating interest rates. Contracts were signed in 1976 to pay 6.5 per cent interest but they were unilaterally raised in 1981 to 21.5 per cent interest.
He points out further how the Brazilian government, following Brazilian law and using Brazilian courts, could have resisted and withstood that unjust, unilateral robbery of the Brazilian people through the unilateral raising of the interest rates, but it simply did not use the means at its disposal nationally and internationally.
The result of that is that between 1973 and 1985 prices rose for the products that were imported from the more industrialized countries. Since Canada is losing its industry to places like Mexico through the free trade agreement and other agreements with the Maquiladora areas, we are going to be in the same position of paying extortionate prices for imported industrial products.
I have already referred to the capital flight which is certainly a danger to Canada, but I want to quote what he quoted from John Kenneth Galbraith who said: "Senseless governments riding senseless projects obtain senseless loans furnished by bankers no less senseless. This festival of senselessness, which in no way honours
Government Orders
the capitalist system and offends the democratic regime, led dozens of Third World countries into bankruptcy in the most astounding process of impoverishment of the poor for the sake of further enrichment of the rich."
There is one way in which that does not quite apply to Canada in that he is talking of Brazil borrowing from foreign banks. In Canada, of course, we have strong banks of our own, or we did until the government began to let in American Express. We will see what American Express does to our strong banking system.
Our banks are among those senseless ones that made foolish loans to countries like Brazil. The banks are now asking the Canadian taxpayers to foot the bill by taking interest rate reductions in return for the money they set aside against those bad loans.
He lists briefly what the external debt has generated, along with this cycle of reducing the standard of living to pay for the external debt, for Brazil: internal debt, economic stagnation, increase in unemployment and underemployment. The Minister of Finance predicts that we will have an increase in unemployment in Canada. He also includes decrease of salaries and decrease of food intake. There are a growing number of people, especially children, in our major cities in Canada who have to depend on charity at the food banks for their daily bread.
When I grew up I understood that Canada was an agricultural country, that we produced food, we even produced enough food to sell. But it turns out that we are becoming more and more dependent on imported food for the actual eating business in our cities, and that there are more and more people who cannot afford to eat, who can only eat if somebody, in charity, gives them some of the food that is surplus to the great multinational corporations that control our food distribution industries. So there is a decrease of food intake. There is a decrease of health conditions in Brazil.
We see this government willing to decrease the money that is available for the public health insurance system in Canada. As surely as the night follows the day, there will be a decrease in health conditions. In the rich province of Ontario there is more money for a few people's heart surgery and less money for battered women's shelters. One doctor pointed out in The Globe and Mail that far more women die for lack of shelter in those battered

March 22, 1990
Government Orders
women's shelters than there are people who die for lack of facilities to do heart surgery.
Of course, there is inflation. I will not compare the Brazil inflation figures with ours, because Brazil is much farther down this unhappy road than is Canada. I am very concerned, though, that Canada has already taken several steps down this road. This slogan of short term pain for long term gain is just a little bit wrong. This policy really amounts to short term pain for long term more pain. Canadians ought to be warned against what this government is doing.
In closing, I want to call on the government and the Canadian people to stand up to the banks of this world, whether they are the banks of Canada, the banks of the United States, the banks of Japan or the banks of western Europe, and to put first things first.
An economy is not primarily intended to produce figures in what is called the gross national product. That is an abstraction. It is not primarily intended to produce this or that interest rate. It is not primarily intended to produce any index of wealth. It is primarily intended to feed people, to clothe people, to provide shelter for people, to provide education, to provide medical care, to provide all the necessities of life. That is how an economy should be measured.
Our economy is called successful because of our gross national product and indices like that, but there are more and more people begging for food in our cities and more and more people sleeping on the streets in our cities. In the wealthy city of Toronto, the estimate is closer to 20,000 than to 10,000 people who are without homes. You can sometimes see them sleeping in the streetcar shelters. You can sometimes see them sleeping in the stairwells of parking garages.
This is a sick way of approaching the economy of a countiy that is so wealthy and in which more and more of the people are plainly poor. I want us to begin to construct an economy by saying, "What do the people need? How shall we produce it, and how shall we finance the means of doing that?", instead of starting at the other end and saying, "What would the bankers like to
take from us and will there be anything left over for our children to eat?"
If this government does not do it, or if it is not thrown out of office by somebody who does do it, we are going to follow the same path as Brazil has taken.
As a beginning, I am satisfied that with my party I shall be voting against this bill to borrow $25.5 billion because this government is thinking only in terms of its relationship to the banks and not in terms of the well-being of the Canadian people.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Spadina has made a very thoughtful speech, largely about the issue of external debt of countries. I think he has done well to place before us the serious dilemma that is faced by countries which have that amount of debt and the cost of it, particularly in human terms.
We are aware that now the net flow is to the developed countries, paying interest to service the debt, which is just the contrary of what it was in 1970. There was a $40 billion net flow to the developing countries then and now it is an annual net flow of some $40 billion from the developing countries to the developed countries, just in payments to service the debt.
It is a serious global problem. The costs of the debt are being paid particularly by the weaker and younger children in poorer countries who are not able to continue in school. The teachers are no longer there because they are not paid. There is no money to pay the capital expenditures for education. I am not talking only about buildings, but even about books and school supplies.
We also see those same weaker and younger people paying the cost of this indebtedness in health care with the closing of clinics, and the inability of a number of fairly major countries to buy vaccines and supplies which they need because the money just is not available any more. I think that all Canadians lament seeing medical clinics and projects that we have taken pride in seeing developed through CUSO, CIDA and many non-governmental organizations, being closed.
I think the hon. member did well to raise the subject of that debt in the context of the borrowing bill which is
March 22, 1990

before us. I do not share all of his conclusions as we are of different political persuasions, but I certainly appreciate that he has raised this issue.
I would like to ask him a question relating to his reference to Brazil and the position of the banks. Anything which is before us now, of course, relates to loans and grants being made by the government, not through the banking system. A component of the amount of money that the government is seeking to borrow through this bill relates to our external aid.
I want to invite the hon. member to comment on the change in Canada's policy in respect of loans. This government, under the leadership of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, changed the policy just a few years ago from making loans to countries from which we knew there would be no hope whatsoever of repayment, to making grants to them. We have accepted the fact that we are a wealthy and prosperous country. We do have a global responsibility and if we are going to be sharing financial assistance with others, we should do it, not in the form of a loan when we know there is no hope of getting that back and allowing interest to accrue, but by putting all of our assistance on a grant basis.
In furtherance of that, we have forgiven indebtedness. That was done first with the African Commonwealth countries and then with the francophone African countries. In just the past few days the Prime Minister announced the forgiveness of indebtedness to Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean as fulfilment of this Canadian policy.
All of that cannot be separated from the current issue of the government's financial position and I would invite the hon. member to share any further thoughts as to whether he supports this new policy of our government. Does he see it as a helpful and positive step to the serious problem of external debt which he has properly raised before us?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore for his very helpful extension of the point I was making. I did and do welcome the Canadian government's decision to forgive loans of some of the sub-Saharan countries and to some of the Caribbean countries.
I understand that in the case of the sub-Saharan countries the actual commercial value of the loans had sunk so far that the loans were almost entirely unrecoverable. What was being given at that point was not nearly
Private Members' Business
the face value. What was originally given, of course, had been the face value, but what was forgiven was really only the shell of what the loan had formerly been. I assume that it is more or less the same in the case of the Caribbean loans.
Nevertheless, to lift that moral burden off the backs of some of the very poorest people in the world is an excellent thing to do. I believe it is a small start in the right direction.
We have several times as large an amount of loans under the Canada Export Corporation, at least in the case of the sub-Saharan countries, which nominally are loans to those countries but functionally are loans to our exporters. That is going to be a more difficult matter to resolve but I hope the government will take it up in the same spirit that it has acted so far.
Basically, Canada must talk with the other nations of the world that have creditor banks. Nations with creditor banks are also debtors, and the biggest case of that is the United States of course. We must talk with the nations of the world that have creditor banks to get those interest rates down. If the Government of Canada considers it is impossible for Canada to act alone in its own interest rates, and I do not know whether I agree with that or not, but if it does, then its obligation is to take it up with the G-7 and with any other countries that have creditor banks lending at extortionate rates, immoral and economically foolish rates, and have the world interest rates brought down to the point where they no longer destroy the economy of Brazil and threaten the economy of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   AGRICULTURE WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Althouse:
[Stage Direction]
March 22, 1990
Private Members' Business
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 on the amendment of Mr. Funk (p.4792).
Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to enter into this debate. Stabilization for farm-fed grain is an important issue for farmers in many regions of this country.
Farmers who market their grain through recognized purchasing establishments receive income protection through the Western Grain Stabilization Program and the Agricultural Stabilization Act. Farmers who grow grain to feed to livestock receive assistance and specific consideration related to the value of feed grain indirectly through livestock stabilization programs.
In addition, Canadian grain farmers have received considerable support from the federal government in recent years to help them through particularly difficult periods of depressed grain prices.
The last decade was not an easy one for Canadian grain and oilseed farmers. During the mid-1980s, grain prices hit lows that could not be foreseen during the boom times of the previous decade.
The international trading arena became a nightmare for Canadian farmers. The largest grain exporters, the United States and the European Community, battled to get a larger piece of the grain market pie. They drove world prices down through the use of export subsidies.
At the same time, widespread drought in 1988 plagued both the prairies and regions of eastern Canada. Farmers had to cope with shrivelling crops and low prices all at once.
Throughout these difficult times, the federal government rallied to the aid of Canadian farmers to the greatest extent possible. The government's record in support of agriculture in recent years speaks for itself.
In 1986 and again in 1987, the federal government provided financial support to grain farmers through the Special Canadian Grains Program. A total of $2.1 billion in direct assistance to farmers was provided over those two years.
Assistance through the special grains program was provided for a number of crops. Individualized payments were made on the basis of how much-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. Unfortunately I must interrupt the hon. member.
The hon. member spoke on this motion for one minute at one point but was not in the House when it resumed. Hence, she has lost the possibility to speak on it again. I made a mistake in recognizing her today.
Unfortunately I cannot recognize the hon. member again, as she has already spoken on this bill although but for one minute.


Mr. Althouse:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
When we run into problems such as this often unanimous consent will resolve them. I would be prepared to give my consent to forgo the rules to allow the hon. member to complete her speech. I presume that that same privilege would be granted by the other party.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: If I can have unanimous consent, I would be delighted.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I ask the hon. member to forgive me for having interrupted, but I really had no choice.


Louise Feltham: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I also thank my colleagues.
The 1987 program also included coverage for summer fallow acreage in western Canada.
The federal government also came to the aid of farmers with the Canadian Crop Drought Assistance Program. This program was developed in response to the drought of 1988 which caused heavy crop damage in many regions of Canada.
In western Canada the 1988 crop totalled just over 31 million tonnes in comparison to a slightly below average 40.7 million in 1989. Farmers who suffered the most severe drought losses in 1988 were assisted through the $850 million federal drought program, which was applicable to all parts of Canada.
In addition, the federal government improved crop insurance programs to strengthen protection for farmers from similar catastrophes. In 1989, as a result of the

severe drought losses of the previous year, the federal government reviewed the crop insurance program. As a result the program is more responsive and coverage is more extensive.
For example, before the changes to crop insurance in 1989 the payment for wheat on stubble in Saskatchewan would have ranged between $32.23 and $52.91 per acre, depending on the risk area. In 1989 the payment for wheat on stubble in the same risk area would range from $49.81 to $85.17 per acre. That is considerably higher coverage.
These changes to crop insurance demonstrate how the federal government is responding to the need for farm income stability. A bill is currently before the House which will result in further improvements to the crop insurance program. The special assistance programs I have mentioned helped farmers with assistance when it was most needed.
But as we know, providing ad hoc assistance is not the most desirable away to produce a sensitive, responsive safety net for Canadian grain and oilseed farmers. Farmers from all regions agree that they need a comprehensive regional safety net program which is fair to all grain and oilseed producers.
Efforts to achieve that are under way. As part of the federal government's agricultural policy review, a special committee of industry and government is working now to develop proposals for a new national grain safety net program.
The Grains Safety Net Committee was formed following a national agri-food conference in Ottawa last December. At that conference it was agreed that we had to move urgently on the development of a better safety net for grain farmers. Our Minister of Agriculture gave this issue a high priority and put it on the fast track.
This committee is looking at a number of different safety net options for grain and oilseed farmers. It is expected the committee will be ready to present its proposals to federal and provincial agriculture ministers in late spring.
The Grains Safety Net Committee is just one of many similar groups now working on agricultural issues as part of a comprehensive agricultural policy review.
Private Members' Business
Defining the problems facing farmers was the first step in this review. Now the job at hand is to develop options, consult with the industry on these options and, finally, take decisions. This applies in all areas under review: marketing, trade development and value added, financial management, safety nets, supply management, transportation, food safety and quality, and sustainable agriculture.
Grain and oilseed farmers are among those most in need of income stabilization at this time. The federal government is responding to that need, as it has done in the past.
The federal government is clearly committed to ensuring, to the greatest extent possible, that our grain and oilseed industry remains viable and productive. Our producers have not and will not be left at the mercy of international trading practices or extraordinary weather conditions over which they have no control. The government's record is proof of its concern.
The policy review is added proof. This wide-ranging review is designed to address concerns with a view to building a healthy, prosperous future for the Canadian agri-food industry. It is the most comprehensive review of Canadian agriculture ever undertaken.
At this time it makes sense to look at the issues such as stabilization for farm-fed grain in the context of the over-all policy review. Now is not the time for piecemeal changes. Now is the time for dealing with issues in a comprehensive way. It is a way that will bring lasting benefits to all Canadian farmers.


Rex Crawford: Madam Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to speak on this motion put forward by the hon. member for Mackenzie.
The motion only asks the government to consider doing something about the effect of paying stabilization on grain that is sold commercially but not paying stabilization on farm-fed grain.
I have to commend my colleague for bringing in a motion like this one because it is time well spent.
When you stop and look at the rationale behind the motion, you have to realize that those producers who grow their own grain are always in the same cycle. When the prices of grain are low, the livestock prices are low as well.

March 22, 1990
Private Members' Business
I hope hon. members opposite vote in the true spirit of this motion and not oppose it simply because it comes from this side of the House.
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 cannot be part of the program since he has to subtract what he purchased from what he sold. There is no net benefit.
However, if a fanner is the sole producer of grain, he can be involved in the stabilization program. If he is the purchaser of feeds, he cannot benefit from that.
I believe that a sale should be a sale, no matter which way it goes. As my colleague from Prince Edward-Hastings mentioned last month, whether he sells as a primary producer, whether he sells to the local grain elevator his own grain enterprise in a farming operation, a hog enterprise or a beef producing enterprise, a sale should be a sale.
The current Western Grain Stabilization Act is not fair. The agricultural industry has been waiting and asking for changes to this legislation for a long time.
I remind the House that the following organizations support this kind of move: the three prairie wheat pools, turkey producers, the Sheep Marketing Agency, the Pork Producers Marketing Board, the Milk Marketing Board, the Egg Producers Marketing Board, the chicken producers, the Canadian Pork Council, the Ontario Cattlemen's Association, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the UPA of Quebec which is probably the largest farm organization in Canada, as well as many other groups and individuals.
Fanners who chose to use all the grain on their farm were in effect told by the signals of the stabilization act that their type of production was no longer needed and was not appreciated. The end result was that they received less money for their grain production than their neighbour down the road. It sounds like the drought assistance program, and we all know what happened with the drought assistance program.
The mandate that the government gave the review committee referred to boundaries. The Lord knows no boundaries. Mother nature knows no boundaries.
A lot of people in my riding averaged seven bushels of beans to the acre and 48 bushels of com to the acre when the five-year average for beans was 50 bushels and for com 142 bushels. These people received nothing. This year for their start-up they have no funding. The program was a disaster.
The administration of the proposal in the motion will not be as difficult as members opposite will say. It has been tried in Alberta, and it is now being copied in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The formula is there.
It could be applied under the Agricultural Stabilization Act and under the Western Grain Stabilization Act, to provide a payment for farm-fed grains.
There would no longer be discrimination against those producers who chose to feed dairy cattle, poultry or livestock on the farm.
In this House we must all be vigilant to protect our agricultural industry. It is certainly important in my riding and we wonder about the government's priorities. Kent County grows 11 per cent of Ontario's com production. Agriculture is the strength and an attribute for my riding. In Canada agriculture is the third largest industry. As we enter a period of transition and uncertainty, we must build our strength while coping with mother nature and government cut-backs.
I believe that now our farmers not only have to worry about mother nature and the big banks, but a federal government that has abandoned them. I was pleased to host some of my colleagues last week as we met with southern Ontario marketing boards and individual farmers. Joining me were the hon. members for Lambton- Middlesex, Algoma, Prince Edward-Hastings, and Essex-Kent. We listened, and we learned. There were over 47 briefs presented that afternoon by the different organizations.
All the farm groups appreciated the opportunity to discuss the future of agriculture in Ontario and in Canada. They say that the current government is not prepared to listen to our concerns. They were quite shocked that we were there to hear their concerns, to compile their problems, and to come up with solutions for them.
A $401 million cut to the agricultural budget is not a good sign for an industry in transition and facing uncertainty. It is why I am hopeful that government members
March 22, 1990

will support this motion, to show their commitment to fairness in agriculture.
As we all know, the government has introduced what it calls a discussion paper on the future of agriculture, while it is cutting program after program. It has drastically altered crop insurance, changed the At and East Program and eliminated the interest free provisions in the advance payments programs, and others, while the Minister of Agriculture says it is difficult for farmers to make long-term plans. Perhaps the minister could better spend his time defending farmers and agriculture from a finance minister who has no idea of the programs he is cutting.
The current stabilization act is not fair. This motion from the hon. member for Mackenzie requests that the government consider changes. Rather than take something away from producers, the government should make an improvement to it.
Everyone involved, producers and farm organizations, are more than willing to sit down and make some positive suggestions. In a spirit of good will and in support of our farmers, I hope the government and all the members of this House vote in support of this motion.
Too often, perhaps, agriculture is overlooked as a priority in Canada. This motion goes some way to improving the lot of our farmers and making the Western Grain Stabilization Act more fair.
I will be supporting the motion.


Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to say a few words on the issue of including farm-fed grain in the Western Grain Stabilization Program and the Agricultural Stabilization Program.
As my colleagues have pointed out in the course of this debate, the issue of farm-fed grain cannot be considered in isolation from other agricultural policies.
Adding farm-fed grain to these stabilization programs seems like the easiest way to acknowledge the contribution which farm-fed grain makes to our agricultural economy. But changing the Western Grain Stabilization Act and the Agricultural Stabilization Act to include
Private Members' Business
farm-fed grain would create a new set of inequities, so we must discuss the issue of farm-fed grain in the over-all context of farm safety net programs.
Right now the federal government is undertaking an extensive review of all agricultural policies and programs. This is certainly one that I welcome. Quite apart from the subject of grain which we are discussing, I know it will be of considerable interest to the fruit farmers of my area.
This government recognizes the urgent need for a safety net program for all farmers, so the Minister of Agriculture has asked, among others, the National Grains Bureau to establish a committee on grain safety nets. The committee includes representatives of both industry and the provinces.
The issue of how farm-fed grain is included in grain safety net programs is likely to be discussed as part of the committee's work.
The agricultural policy review is one of the most comprehensive ever undertaken. It began with the release of the discussion paper Growing Together to which the last speaker alluded. The paper outlines the major principles for building agricultural programs and policies to meet the challenges of the future. Those principles are market responsiveness, self-reliance, regional sensitivity and environmental sustainability.
Market responsiveness means aggressively going after markets both at home and abroad. It means concentrating on producing what the market wants and needs.
Self-reliance means getting reasonable returns from the market-place. We will continue to play an important role in supporting that sector and in ensuring that that takes place, but the policies and programs which we have in place should not at the same time distort market signals.
Regional sensitivity means putting programs in place which will reflect regional strengths and advantages, but at the same time these programs should take regional diversity and aspirations into account.
Finally, environmental sustainability means preserving the soil and water resources for future generations. It also means ensuring a wholesome, safe and nutritious food supply. That is in everyone's best interest.

March 22, 1990
Private Members' Business
Based on these principles, the paper discusses the issues and the need for change in seven key areas. They are marketing, trade development and value-added processing, financing and managing the family farm, safety net programs, supply management, agriculture transportation, food safety and quality, and sustainable agriculture.
These were the topics for sessions during the National Agri-food Policy Conference in Ottawa last December. Over 1,800 people were at the conference. All sectors of the agriculture economy were represented, from farmers to processors to consumers.
The federal government put the discussion paper and the conference together as a starting point. We wanted to find out if industry and the provinces were willing to work with us in developing policies for the future. Most of the delegates agreed that we should pursue a policy review, and that is what we are doing. Committees with representation from both levels of government and from industry have been set up to deal with the seven main areas that I just identified.
Let us talk about market development and value added. A government-industry committee has been established to look at how competitive we are and how we can become more competitive in a changing marketplace.
Another committee will look at how Canada can lead in value-added production. The National Grains Bureau has been working on encouraging value-added production in the grains and oilseeds sector, and the bureau will continue its work.
Looking for value-added opportunities in the international market-place is important as well, but there are things we can do here at home to promote that kind of activity. First, governments have to ensure that their programs and policies do not discourage value-added activity. The Federal-Provincial Market Development Council will be suggesting ways to do this as well.
It may not be well known, but it is a fact that there are 169 barriers to trade between the provinces right now. We are taking steps at our level to eliminate those barriers. Agriculture ministers have signed a memorandum of understanding on the issue. Establishing a binding dispute settlement mechanism to deal with
interprovincial trade barriers on an ongoing basis is another important initiative in this area.
A government-industry task force has also been established to look at the management needs of farmers. Over the next six months the federal government will be consulting with industry to develop options for helping farmers improve their management skills.
In the area of supply management, two task forces are already in place: the dairy task force and the poultry task force.
A government-industry steering group has been established to deal with three key issues in the area of transportation polity: the Western Grain Transportation Act, feed freight assistance and minimum compensatory rates. We hope that decisions on these issues will be possible by the end of this year.
Food safety is another area of concern in the agri-food industry. More consultation and communication is needed so that consumers and industry understand the system better and are more involved in the policy-making process. A number of mechanisms are already in place for these consultations. They include the the National Food Safety Advisory Group, the Salmonella Review Board and the Pesticide Registration Review Board, to name just a few.
Another important step is the Conference on Food Safety being organized. It will take place in just a few days in Toronto.
Finally, a federal-provincial committee on sustainable agriculture is in place. A discussion paper outlining the federal position and provincial perspectives should be ready by the end of June. Extensive consultations will be held on the paper and options will be tabled with the agriculture ministers at their annual meeting.
I have outlined the steps being taken in the policy review very briefly. We are facing a number of tough issues. For the purposes of this debate, how we include farm-fed grain in income stabilization programs is just one. We have to look at issues surrounding the Western Grain Transportation Act and the whole area of agriculture in particular.
As I said, in my area we have grain farmers, dairy producers and fruit farmers. They are very interested in this discussion. This is a debate in an area I have
March 22, 1990

followed very closely because I, along with other members of this House, would like to see one comprehensive policy that will ensure not only their survival but promote their prosperity. We believe that would be not only good for the farmers of this country; it would be good for all Canadians.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the motion presented by the hon. member for the New Democratic Party, that in the opinion of this House, the government should consider introducing measures to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act, so that producers will be eligible for certain programs, even if they do not sell the grain they harvest.
Madam Speaker, I read the motion only a few minutes ago, but I decided to take a few moments to support this motion because the subject has been raised by farm producers in my riding. In fact, in my riding, producers are not covered by the Western Grain Stabilization Act but by the Agricultural Stabilization Act. I am told there was an amendment to the motion, to include the Agricultural Stabilization Act. I therefore welcome this opportunity to support the amendment, as well since if the legislation is amended as proposed in the motion and in the amendment, farm producers in my riding will be eligible for coverage when they use their crops to feed their own livestock.
The problem is as follows, Madam Speaker. A farmer can raise certain crops, sell them and, of course, be eligible for the stabilization programs I just mentioned. If a producer has his own livestock, the crops used to feed his livestock are not eligible for the same coverage. This puts farm producers who raise crops and livestock at a disadvantage, compared with producers who specialize in only one of these areas. That is why I felt I had to take a few minutes to show my support for this initiative, and I hope this debate will not take too long and that we will have a positive vote on this motion. Of course, I hope the amendment will be passed so that areas in Eastern and Central Canada will also benefit. And then, of course,
Private Members' Business
the motion as amended can enjoy the support of more members of the House and help more Canadian farmers.
I just heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice say in his speech-and I hope that I am summarizing faithfully what he told us-that we could not consider this bill apart from all kinds of other government initiatives. It may be true that some other government initiatives help some other agricultural sectors, but I must still point out that the livestock industry, for example, is very cyclical, with ups and downs. In view of this, I think that the House should adopt this motion and encourage the government to make the desired changes to the program. So, Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me too to join those who want this motion and the amendment passed.


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today on this motion put forward by the hon. member for Mackenzie which states in part: "That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing". That is a typical motion that is usually put by opposition members. It does not give any direction to the government. If the motion had stated that the government "should introduce measures", rather than just "consider the advisability" that would have been more appropriate.


Don Boudria: It would have been out of order.


René John Soetens: What I have is a more appropriate response to the issue that the member is trying to raise. It is not just the matter of the issue of the Western Grain Stabilization Act.
The federal government is currently undertaking a very comprehensive review of all of the agriculture policies in Canada. The goal of the review is to work with industry, the provinces, and with producers, in particular, to map out a national policy for Canadian agriculture.
The review includes all farm safety-net programs. The issue of how farm-fed grain should be dealt with under grain income stabilization programs is under discussion.
I am sure, as you can hear, Madam Speaker, there are many members who are already cheering the very wise

March 22, 1990
Private Members' Business
statements that I am making in this particular presentation about the good things the government is doing.
This issue cannot be looked at in isolation, as is suggested by the motion in front of us. Including farm-fed grain in stabilization programs is an important issue, but one which must be looked at in the context of all agricultural support programs. The agricultural stabilization program and the western grain stabilization program provides regional support to producers when grain prices drop below a five-year average.
Concern has been expressed that the two programs discourage the use of grain as feed on the farm and promote off-farm sales instead. Livestock producers in both eastern and western Canada have asked that farm-fed grain be included under these two programs, and I can certainly understand the reasons for the request.
However, to do this would mean fundamental changes to the structure of both programs. The programs would have to change from being marketing-based to production-based. This in turn raises additional issues.
Yield data would be essential to any new production based formula, and since individual yield histories may be unavailable or difficult to obtain administration would have to be based on regional yield averages. Just a little while back a member from the Windsor area talked about some of the yields that some of the farmers in his area were gaining on beans and com, so there really would be a problem in arriving at those yield numbers. Payments based on regional averages could mean overpayments to producers with yields below the regional average while those with higher yields would in fact be penalized.
In addition, a production-based ASA or western grain stabilization assistance could result in stabilization payments at times when livestock returns are adequate or higher than average. Other stabilization programs such as the dairy program already include consideration of the costs of farm-fed grain. Some producers could be compensated twice for the same grain.
The Standing Committee on Agriculture which examined the issue of farm-fed grain in its January 1986 report on the Western Grain Stabilization Act agreed that livestock producers could be paid twice if farm-fed grain was included under either of the programs. Their report stated that it should be only for the final products
marketed that the producers receive market-risk protection under the Western Grain Stabilization Act or the other 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 a raw form and again it goes into the final product.
While including farm-fed grain under either program may give livestock producers more protection, it may also remove protection provided to grain producers when delivery opportunities are reduced. For example, the Western Grain Stabilization Act is designed to trigger payments when reduced deliveries result in reduced sales. That type of protection would not be provided under a production-based program.
The final point is that including farm-fed grain in the Western Grain Stabilization Act or the other act would make both programs more expensive.
Currently, livestock support programs include the price of grain in the formula for triggering payments. When grain prices rise, support prices for livestock also increase. Although the cost of producing farm-fed grain may not be accounted for under existing livestock support programs, actual expenditures for input items are part of the Western Grain Stabilization Act payment calculation.
As an alternative, the cost formula for red meat stabilization programs could be amended to incorporate the cost of producing grain rather than the price of grain itself. This would give better protection to producers who produce their own livestock feed.
The Road Not Taken, a study done by producers through the National Grains Bureau's Grains 2000 program, emphasizes that the livestock sector represents a major opportunity for value-added and diversification in the agricultural sector. However, producers who must buy feed for the livestock might not receive adequate protection under a formula which incorporated the cost of growing feed, not its market price.
These are some of the options under discussion in the farm-fed grain issue. Clearly, this government recognizes the significant role farm-fed grain plays in the Canadian agricultural economy. Excluding wheat, approximately half of all cereal crops produced in this country are fed to livestock. The proportion is even
March 22, 1990

higher in the maritimes. Even when wheat is included, close to 30 per cent of cereal crops are fed on farms.
That is one of the reasons this government-a government I am a member of-is conducting a review of grain safety nets as part of the over-all agricultural policy review.
The process of reviewing grain safety-nets began with a series of regional meetings between the farm leaders and government in 1988. Meetings were led by the hon. Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds. Farm-fed grain was an important issue at every one of those meetings.
A grains safety-net committee was established soon after the agricultural policy conference in December, and the committee has met three times in Winnipeg since then to discuss options for a national stabilization program. Recommendations are to be made to government this spring, followed by further discussions with industry. The committee is made up of farm leaders and government representatives from all regions and provinces in Canada. Farm-fed grain is an issue which has been raised at each and every one of these meetings.
Options being considered by the committee include an program in which federal and provincial governments, as well as producers, would share program costs. Other options include a program of individual price guarantee contracts; a full cost of production guarantee; an individual farm gross revenue guarantee; and an individual net revenue stabilization plan.
These and other options are being carefully examined and fine-tuned by the grain safety-net committee and the National Grains Bureau. Committee recommendations are to be included in a report for release this spring.
The government's goal is to develop fair, realistic and acceptable solutions to the problems and issues facing the agricultural sector. A vital part of the review process is discussion at the farm organization level. Farm leaders from all major producer organizations have been involved with a view to developing a grain stabilization
Private Members' Business
plan which could be adapted to suit all agricultural sectors.
It was my pleasure just two weeks ago to mail to many of my constituent farmers the request for them to participate in this whole discussion process. It was not only to participate but to give them some basis of how they might submit their personal concerns and issues to the department. I know the government is consulting very closely and working with farmers to tiy to solve their agricultural problems.
In conclusion, simply tinkering with the Western Grain Stabilization Act and the ASA will not be enough. Instead, let us continue to look at stabilization of farm-fed grain in the context of all agricultural stabilization programs and work to developing a new, comprehensive approach which will better suit all sectors of the industry.
It has been my pleasure to present this view in this debate today and I hope that members will keep that in mind as we go forward to deal with this particular resolution.


Mr. Ken James (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to the motion that the government should consider the advisability of introducing measures to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act, most especially to include coverage for producers who feed their own grain to then-own livestock.
When we consider the inclusion of farm-fed grain in the Western Grain Stabilization Act and the Agricultural Stabilization Act, we have to bear in mind that such a move is not as simple as it may sound. To add farm-fed grain to the WGSA and ASA framework certainly would require fundamental changes to these programs.
However, cost is really only one of the number of factors we must consider as a government. A basic change would have to occur in the structure of the WGSA and ASA themselves if we were to do this. That is, the programs would have to be changed from marketing-based to production-based programs. It is a major change that would in itself present another set of issues.
The programs, as they were designed, are based on commercial grain sales. If we were to add farm-fed grain,

March 22, 1990
Private Members' Business
for which data is difficult to obtain, we would have to base payments on production. In that case, yield data would be essential to this kind of formula.
Individual yield histories may be difficult to obtain, we think, and that would leave regional yield averages as the base for the program. Using that kind of data would create inequities because the producers with high yield could be penalized and those with low yields could very well be over-compensated.
There are other problems with a production-based WGSA or ASA. First, a production-based program could result in stabilization payments at times when livestock returns are adequate or higher than average.
It would also remove some of the protection that producers now have from low marketings when export opportunities are reduced. For instance, the WGSA is designed to trigger payments when farmers' delivery opportunities are reduced and they cannot market very much of their grain. A production-based program would not provide that kind of protection.
We could look at other ways to include farm-fed grain in the stabilization framework. One of those would be to include the cost of grain production in livestock support programs. Currently, the market price of grain is usually included in the calculations to determine support.
Dairy programs, at least to some degree, include the cost of producing grain in support calculations. Including the cost of producing grain in the livestock support calculations would cause livestock support prices to rise when the cost of producing grain increases. The positive note in this option is it would provide an incentive for some producers to produce both grain and livestock in order to be eligible for grain stabilization payments. The downside is that it would work against producers who buy feed for the livestock that they are raising.
Another option that has been discussed is to stabilize revenues from grain and livestock operations jointly. This type of program would be targeted at over-all situations instead of looking at grain and livestock separately. It would have to be operated at the farm level to take into account differences in the importance of each enterprise.
These are some of the options that have been discussed in the past. Farm-fed grain is clearly an issue that
should be addressed. But this government is examining grain stabilization in the context of a review of all agriculture stabilization programs.
Over a year ago, representatives of this government, led by the hon. Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds, held a series of regional meetings with farm leaders to discuss grain safety nets. A subsequent meeting was held in Winnipeg in January, 1989. At that time, farm leaders from all regions of Canada gathered to discuss five options for a national stabilization program which were developed by Agriculture Canada's National Grains Bureau in Winnipeg.
These five options included an ASA type of program in which federal and provincial governments, as well as producers, would share program costs. Other options include a program of individual price guarantee contracts, a full cost of production guarantee, an individual farm gross revenue guarantee, and an individual net revenue stabilization plan.
The individual net revenue stabilization plan was designed under the Grains 2000 program, so it is commonly referred to as the Grains 2000 option.
Grains 2000 is a federal program designed to bring industiy and government together to work on policy options for agriculture. The first Grains 2000 task force produced a report on opportunities for value-added production in Canada. It included the net revenue stabilization option as part of this report. That option, along with several others, is now being examined by the grains safety net committee. This group comprised of federal and provincial government representatives and farmers was formed as a result of the agriculture policy review conference that was held last December.
The committee is led by Dennis Stephens, the assistant deputy minister responsible for the National Grains Bureau. This group has met and begun the process of reviewing the options. Their goal is to identify a couple of options, to look at how they may determine the most workable options, and to then present these to the Minister of Agriculture later this spring.
The establishment of the National Grains Bureau was a major step by the government in drawing industiy into the discussions on policy development options for agri-
March 22, 1990

culture. The bureau, which is part of the Grains and Oilseeds Branch of Agriculture Canada, was opened in Winnipeg in April 1988. It is situated in the heart of the grain industry, and is positioned to forge those closer ties between government and industry which are essential, we believe, to the future of agriculture in this country.
Indeed, consultation with the industry is an important component in the agriculture policy review initiated by this government. By working together with industry and considering producers in all the areas of the country, we feel that we can develop fair solutions to the problems and issues facing the Canadian agriculture sector.
Instead, let's look at farm-fed grain stabilization as an issue in the broad context of all agricultural stabilization programs, carry on with this discussion and bring forth the options and suggestions noted in this speech earlier.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate regarding the inclusion of farm-fed grain in the Western Grain Stabilization Act and the Agriculture Stabilization Act.
Producers in different regions have raised the issue and questioned why grain fed on farms is not covered under these programs. They have cited this as a perceived inequity between grain farmers who market their grain and those who feed it.
Raising livestock is one of the best examples of value-added production. There is a need in the ever changing global market-place in which we find ourselves to look more at value-added processing, particularly in western Canada.
Agriculture in the west has been traditionally an industry built on the export of raw products. As the industry moves into the next century, the changing world market-place makes it necessary to diversify our agricultural base and export more processed products.
I bring this issue into the debate because it is one of the areas now under review by the federal government. Just as the whole area of safety nets for farmers is being examined by the government and industry, our approach to value-added and market development is also under review, as is food safety, supply management and other key areas.
Private Members' Business
In other words, we are in the midst of a comprehensive agricultural policy review. We are looking at programs and policies in a broad context. Now is not the time to be making fundamental changes to one particular program in isolation of the review work.
Just a few short months ago, 1,800 industry and government representatives met in Ottawa. They met to begin the task of reviewing the agricultural policies in this country.
Plans to establish a number of task forces in several areas were announced as a result of this national conference. One of those plans, as I mentioned, was farm safety nets.
The current federal-provincial working group on farm safety nets was in place before the conference and will continue its work. The group's key objective is to develop a long term, comprehensive safety net policy for all commodities and for all farmers. The group will prepare an interim report to the agricultural ministers at then-annual meeting. Further consultations with farm groups and other interested parties will take place in the fall.
In the meantime, there is an immediate need to develop proposals to assist the grains and oilseeds sector with a national program framework for safety nets. That review is being led by the National Grains Bureau in Winnipeg and work is beginning immediately. It will involve extensive consultation with industry to develop proposals as quickly as possible for this new safety net program. In addition, action is being taken in the area of value-added. The National Grains Bureau again is playing a major role. Much work has already been done, but it will become part of an over-all strategy and policy review system on the part of this government.
A task force is being established to examine the competitiveness of Canada's productive capacity, and the challenges and opportunities in the global market-place. The task force will look at the respective roles of governments, producers, processors, retailers and, most important, the consumer, who is affected by any government proposal. This will allow it to set priorities and encourage consensus for future development and future programs.

March 22, 1990
Adjournment Debate
At the same time, action will continue on ways to remove rules and practices which prevent the free flow of agri-food products within Canada.
This is a result of a memorandum of understanding signed by agriculture ministers on the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers. As you know, Madam Speaker, the premier of my province, Premier McKenna, was one of the leading forces in that elimination of interprovincial trade barriers, and we hope that we are successful in that. There are now about 170 such barriers to interprovincial trade. We talk of free trade and we talk of global trade but we are restricted within our own borders. Priority will be given to establishing a permanent process, including a binding dispute settlement mechanism to address trade barriers on an ongoing basis.
There are many opportunities for Canadian agriculture to diversify. In these times of low grain prices, it is critical that we look at value-added processing for the future prosperity of the agriculture industry. In my province, this is something which we have achieved. Value-added in the province of New Brunswick is in the order now of close to 50 per cent. In some of the western provinces, that figure is presently in the single-digit numbers, and in some provinces it is less than 5 per cent. The problem is quite obvious, it is staring us right in the face. That is why this whole area of value-added and market development is part of the agricultural review policy.
This government is taking a look at the industry and the policies that shape it. Besides marketing and safety net issues, we are looking at transportation, farm finance, management, food safety, supply management and, of course, sustainable agriculture.
Action on each of these programs will proceed at different rates of speed. Results of consultations and analyses will be forthcoming in the year ahead.
What I want to emphasize here is the context to which this motion to amend the WGSA and the ASA is being made. It is clearly not the time to tinker with safety net programs when a major review of them is under way.
The ad hoc performances of previous governments will not be tolerated and we are not going to be part of that. Through the review process, solutions to some of the problems or inequities said to exist in Canadian agriculture policy can hopefully be found. Through this process
we can develop the kinds of agricultural programs and policies that will be fair to all producers.
By making fundamental changes to individual programs, we run the risk of creating more problems. Governments will always face problems and they will always face challenges, but when the Canadian people begin to understand what we are attempting to do, I think that will solve some of the difficulties, because farmers and all support people in that industiy will support what we are trying to do. That will mean producers, people in the agri-food business, and most of all, as I mentioned before-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. The time for the consideration of Private Members' Business is now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, this item drops to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, on February 15, I asked the Minister of Finance in this House why it was that he on behalf of his government which was always advising farmers to face up to the market realities, refused to follow his own advice when it came to the value of the Canadian dollar or the interest rates in Canada.
I asked that question because it had just been announced through the press that the Government of Canada and the Minister of Finance had just spent more than $3 billion U.S. of our foreign exchange reserves trying to prop up the Canadian dollar. The result was that an attempt at reducing interest rates fizzled out. The Canadian dollar dropped more than 2 cents in very short order. The market analysts tell us that apparently the market was afraid of both the lower returns that
March 22, 1990

foreign investors could make in Canadian dollars because of the drop of .5 per cent in interest rates, as well as some trepidation about the upcoming budget.
The Minister of Finance in his response ignored the basis of the question and gave a little gratuitous speech about not being able to bring down interest rates in an unnatural way. The implication of my question was that maybe if he just let the Canadian dollar find its level interest rates would fall along with it and if he would stop trying to prop up the dollar to an unnatural level both the value of the dollar and the amount of interest we would have to pay foreigners to be attracted to Canada would be lower, to the benefit of those of us in the country who try to make our living exporting product.
I represent an area that sells the products of our mines, our forests, our farms and sells a little fish and some fur. All those industries are being devastated by this government's interest rate policy.
High interest rates increase our costs. Every time we have to borrow money to carry on operating expenditures or to add to our capital equipment load, it costs us money as the interest rates go up. However the high dollar is hurting us almost as much, if not more, because we sell on an international market and we usually sell in American funds.
When our Canadian dollar starts to rise, particularly when it is being pushed up by our own government, it hurts. It hurts because the amount of money coming to our pocket is less.
Let me illustrate. The world-wide grain stocks are falling. They are expected to be their lowest in 35 or 36 years at the end of this crop year. The income from the sale of that grain this year versus last year is actually going down because the value of the dollar has shifted. The amount of funds left over when we convert our sale out of American funds back into Canadian means that we have less money actually than we had before.
Let me give an idea of how little my part of the country and my industry is contributing to inflation. I want to point out that when I was first nominated to go into politics I bought a new full size car. It cost me just under $6,000.1 had two ways of paying for it. I could either sell seven 900-pound feeder steers and pay for the car, or I
Adjournment Debate
could sell just under 2,000 bushels of No. 2 wheat and I could pay for that car.
Right now my neighbours and I have those same options to go out and buy a new car of the same size, but instead of it costing seven of those 900-pound feeder steers it will cost us 25 of those feeder steers to buy the current new car which is virtually the same model it was back when. Or, it will cost us not under 2,000 bushels of No. 2 wheat which it did back when I was a new entrant to politics, but about 7,000 bushels of No. 2 wheat.
I say that because I want to make it very clear to the House, and especially to the Minister of Finance, that if there is somebody contributing to inflation in this country it is not the farmers of Saskatchewan or of rural Canada. It is not the people who work in the mines. It is not the people who work in the forests. The people who are contributing to inflation reside in his Bank of Canada and in his ministry. He should start reacting a little more realistically and come up with some policies that will lower the interest rate. If it it hurts the dollar, fine. It will only help those of us who make our living exporting.


Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, the government is aware of the difficulties that high interest rates can cause for Canadian farmers.
At the same time, it must be recognized that while interest rates can temporarily be brought down through a more expansionary monetary policy, they can only be sustainably lowered by addressing the fundamental cause of high interest rates: inflationary conditions and large government deficits that presently exist. That is why over the last few years monetary and fiscal policies have been directed toward containing inflationary pressures and reducing the government's demand on available savings.
It is important to recognize that there is no room for complacency about inflation. Inflation is everyone's problem. Complacency in the 1970s led to the recession of the early 1980s. For instance, in November 1976 the inflation rate was 5.5 per cent across this country or roughly what it is today. By the summer of 1981 it had climbed to 13 per cent and the economy was in a mess. Inflation cripples the efficiency of the economy. It impedes productivity growth and it harms Canadian

March 22, 1990
Adjournment Debate
farmers. The price for many of our agricultural exports is set in world markets and domestic prices must remain stable to allow us to compete effectively internationally.
Interest rate increases over the past few years have occurred in the context of very strong growth in demand in relation to the economy's productive capacity to produce goods and services, with resulting inflationary pressures. More recently there have been some signs that demand is slowing down, but inflation has remained high. Meaningful interest rate reductions will occur as the risk of inflation recedes. To take on additional risks on inflation at this time would be counterproductive.
The rise of the Canadian dollar over the last two years has been a reflection of many factors, not just interest rates. The strength of our economy and investor confidence in Canada's prospects have been major factors. The experience of the 1970s and early 1980s clearly shows that one of the biggest threats to the competitiveness of Canadian producers is higher inflation.
The government will remain committed to lowering inflation in order to lay the foundation for sustained economic growth in all sectors of the economy. I think Canadian farmers will benefit from durably lower interest rates and stable prices.


FOOD BANKS
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, on February 14,1 rose in this House and addressed an important issue that is of growing concern to many of us. The issue is the overwhelming increase in the number of Canadians who use food banks regularly for their daily sustenance.
I had received a letter and two documents from the Daily Bread Food Bank, a food bank in my riding, describing on a national level and on a local level the scope of this phenomenon. One of the documents entitled Canadian Hunger Count 1989 was based on special surveys carried out by food bank organizations in 65 Canadian cities and towns, which represents over half the population of the country, covering 907 emergency grocery and meal programs in the month of March 1989.
The findings indicated that nearly 400,000 people in Canada resort to food and charitable food programs. Of these 400,000 Canadians, 87 per cent get groceries to
prepare at home but 13 per cent or over 50,000 Canadians are served communal meals at soup kitchens, children's breakfast programs, drop-ins and shelters. These figures are based on any given month. Applied nationally on an annual basis, the findings indicate that Canadians who use food banks run in the order of 1.4 million, that is, every year 1.4 million Canadians are compelled to rely on the kindness of strangers to feed themselves and their families.
The most alarming of these findings is that although 26 per cent of the population of Canada is under 18, children and youth make up 40 per cent of those using food banks. Hungercount warns, and I quote: "children are twice as likely to be fed by food from a charitable food program as adults".
Although there are some among us who feel that the situation in which these Canadians find themselves is self-fulfilled, a survey of public attitudes taken by Gallup in April 1989 found that 67 per cent of Canadians feel that this crisis is a serious problem in Canada, and close to 70 per cent of Canadians feel that government has a responsibility to solve this problem.
The 87 per cent of Canadians who depend on food banks depend on social assistance, unemployment insurance, old age pensions and disability allowances. Yet, instead of increasing aid either directly or indirectly through improved access to education and training, what has the government done? It has cut back. It has cut back on benefits and education as we saw in the last budget.
This is not a partisan issue. What I have presented in the House are facts. Poverty and hunger know no politics. We in the House should stop playing politics with the very lives of our fellow Canadians. Although there was a motion presented in the House in November 1989, supported by all three parties, there are as many without food and shelter today as there were before the introduction of that motion. Motions do not put food on the table.
The Daily Bread Food Bank distributes 650,000 pounds of food to 11 different food banks in my riding alone. These food banks serve approximately 2,500 people a month. In January and February of this year, they have already distributed 58,000 pounds of food compared to 43,000 pounds during the same period in 1989.
March 22, 1990

I also have in my riding a unique food service. St. Francis Table offers a full meal consisting of soup, meat, potatoes, salad, dessert, coffee and tea for which it charges only $1 to help defray the costs. With volunteer help, they serve 4,000 to 5,000 meals a month within a five-day week. Half its clientele is made up of people on some type of social assistance. One-quarter are ordinary, average senior citizens and the others are transients and refugees. Very recently, St. Francis lable had to move to a larger facility to accommodate the growing number of Canadians accepting its charity.
When I visit St. Francis lable I ask what is the main reason that forces users to live under these conditions. Nine times out of ten I am told that it is a choice between shelter and food: once they have paid for their shelter, they have no money left for food.
This may not be the case in other towns or cities, but in Toronto where there is so little affordable housing people are literally being forced to trade off one essential for another. The number of people using food banks in metro Toronto is over 84,000, a number equal to the population of Kingston. Over the period of a year, one-quarter of a million people have had to utilize a food bank of one type or another at least once.
These people have an average of $23 a week left over once their shelter has been paid. There are not many of us who can conceive paying for food, transportation, clothing, medicine, et cetera, for $23 a week. One in eight food bank households earns less or brings home less money than its shelter costs. The inevitable reality for these people is homelessness.
This cannot be allowed to go on. We have to get together on a federal level working with the provinces and municipalities to see how best this crisis can be addressed. In a country as rich as ours, we all have to have the political will to work toward a common goal, a goal to eliminate poverty in Canada. We can start with step one: eliminate the need for food banks.


Kenneth Albert James: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak today on a subject of primary concern to us as Canadians. I would like to remind the member for Parkdale-High Park that all Canadians, regardless of their political affiliation, cannot rest and be satisfied as
Adjournment Debate
long as even one family is suffering from poverty in this country. I commend him for his keen interest in this problem.
Canadians generally enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world and one of this government's priorities will be to maintain and improve the standard of living for Canadians and their children in the future in Canada.
The sound basis to assure a better future for Canadians and to protect our social safety net is a very healthy and prosperous economy, and in order for it to be a truly caring society, Canada's wealth and prosperity must be shared with those who are less fortunate and are in the greatest need.
Let us first address the issue of growth and prosperity. There is no question that the policies of this government have contributed to the economic growth in Canada. Since 1984 this government has embarked on a program of revitalizing the country. In just five years, as a result of the economic policies, more than 1.6 million new jobs have been created, the majority of them full time jobs. That is important to people who can now make money and take care of themselves.
Canadians in need have been able to benefit from this growth. Since 1984, some 760,000 persons have escaped poverty and average income has risen in that period of time by about 8 per cent. This government has taken the necessary steps to help those most in need and to ensure economic growth can continue.
Despite these important achievements, most Canadians are aware that the country is facing a serious debt problem and last year more money was spent on interest payments to service our national debt than all the programs administered by the Department of National Health and Welfare put together, more than the cost of national health care programs, welfare programs, old age security and family allowances. We end up spending more money on our debt problem than on all those important programs.
Clearly these public debt charges have been putting a lot of pressure on spending priorities and expanding into the social safety net. The survival of these programs depends on the prosperity of this country and we mean to continue that important job.

March 22, 1990
Adjournment Debate
This government strongly believes in directing resources to programs which help those most in need. One important example is a refundable child tax credit program which is designed to help low and middle income families. The maximum level of the child credit has gone up by more than 50 per cent since 1984, from $367 to $565 in 1989. Close to 5 million children benefitted from this measure in 1989. Also, families with preschool-aged children benefit from a supplement of $200 per child. In total, the child tax credit is worth about $2 billion annually out of the government coffers.
The government has also introduced major tax reforms. About 850,000 lower income Canadians were removed from the tax rolls. In 1986, a refundable sales tax credit was introduced to support low-income families. Effective in 1991, this credit is to be superseded by a new enhanced goods and services tax credit targeted to low-income and middle-income families.
I would like to remind the House of the recent adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This convention is intended to protect and promote the physical, spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of children. Clearly, actions pertaining to the conditions and rights of Canadian children will have to be taken in co-operation with the provinces.
In addition, recently the Minister of National Health and Welfare announced that the federal government would be pledging $1.3 million toward the establishment of a 24-hour national hotline to assist children in trouble.
Certainly the government has taken heed of low-income families, of families in need. The most serious is young children who are in need in low-income situations. The government concentrated on all those things and as our economy becomes more buoyant we can more to help alleviate the problems that the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park has mentioned.


TRANSPORT
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, on February 14 of this year I rose in the House to ask a series of questions of the Minister of Transport, who has now gone on to other duties.
The questions related to the announcement the day before by Bombardier of Montreal that it was prepared to invest in a high speed rail passenger system in this country. Bombardier indicated that the only way it was possible to develop such a system from the financial side was if the federal government participated to the tune of $1.7 billion.
The proposal by Bombardier is being paralleled by a study being done by the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. They just held hearings in this city this week and will be holding hearings throughout the area along the corridor.
A number of people have expressed interest, including obviously provincial jurisdictions, and the Bombardier Company. Lavelin, through its subsidiary UTDC, is indicating its interest and willingness to work in co-operation with Bombardier for the maintenance of facilities at their plant in Kingston, which is along the corridor.
The Standing Committee on Transport has long held interest in the concept of high speed rail. The New Democratic Party has proposed that high speed rail is the way to go, particularly in the corridor.
We just heard in the transport committee from the new Minister of Transport about the update on the study of south central Ontario vis-a-vis air services. We know there is massive construction at Pearson International Airport right now for Terminal III. We have an environmental assessment review process under way to give consideration to the addition of one or two more runways at Pearson International to handle the ever increasing air traffic. We heard from the Deputy Minister that Pickering is not dead, but is still on the table as a possibility for a second major airport in Toronto.
The whole concept of high speed rail connecting Windsor to Quebec City, but more important, Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal, even at a high cost of $3.5 billion or $3.4 billion is quite competitive, both in financial terms whether it be private sector dollars or public dollars and in terms of the time factor. High speed rail can compete head to head with air, downtown to downtown, getting people from Toronto to Ottawa by rail faster than by air. People can arrive at the city, not harassed because they had to drive to the airport through the congestion of Toronto, go through security, wait on the tarmac, fly through rough weather to Ottawa, and go through the
March 22, 1990

process of getting out and driving to their destination. City to city, downtown to downtown rail is economical and feasible. The Government of Canada has a responsibility because in addition to the economics and the speed and service, there is the environmental question as well. There is no question that high speed electric rail is extremely more environmentally friendly than air is today or will be in the next 20 or 30 years.
I suggest that the answer that the minister gave me, that the Government of Canada could not afford to participate, was wrong. We cannot afford not to participate.
We are spending billions of dollars on air. If we spent the same billions of dollars on rail, we would be able to move more people faster, safer and with much less an impact on the environment. I will wait with interest to hear the response from the government to find out the elaboration of its refusal to once again participate in something that is environmentally logical and financially sound.


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan for his longstanding interest in transportation. I also appreciate his interest in the corridor because that is the area where I come from and it is an issue that we should be talking about.
The government is aware of the arguments that have been put forward in favour of the development of a high speed rail service in the corridor. However, the federal finances available for rail passenger services are fully committed at this point in time to the network that has been established for VIA Rail, an argument we have gone through recently.
Adjournment Debate
The current climate of fiscal restraint necessarily limits the federal interest in proposed high speed rail projects only to the extent of not having adequate resources. We are interested in a privately and commercially financed and viable venture.
As the hon. Minister of Transport has assured the House, he is willing of course to consider all proposals for a transfer of any rail passenger service to third parties, as well as proposals concerning new technology that the hon. member is interested in.
VIA has been asked to pursue all such opportunities and report to the government on a case by case basis. The high speed train proposal being advanced by Bombardier is precisely the kind of initiative that the government had hoped would take place in the private sector. The government encourages those kinds of efforts.
The royal commission that has been set up is examining the role of all inter-city passenger transportation modes in the 21st century. The potential of the high speed rail will undoubtedly, as the hon. member probably knows, be part of that examination.
As I have mentioned we are willing to consider any proposal Bombardier may wish to put forward. However, the government is not in a position, at this point in time, to make a commitment as to its participation in such a project. But we are very interested in seeing the proposals when they come forward and we thank him for his interest.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. This House therefore stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 23, 1990